OF THE
SE LECT COMMJITTEE   TO INVESTIGATE
THEI
MADE TO THE
HOUSE OF -REPRFESENTATTVES,
FEBRUARY 18, 1.73.
WA SHIN GTO N:
GOVERNiIENT PRINTING OFFIC E.
718'3.








42D CONGRESS,  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.   REPORT'
3d Session..                                                            o.77.
CREDIT MOBILIER INVESTIGATION.
FE1M31UARY 18, 1873. —Ordered to h)e printed with the evidence, and the farther consideration postponedi until Tuesday next, after the reading of the Journal.
MPr. POLAND, from the select comnmittee to investigate the alleged Credit
Mobilier briberyr, made the following
R EPOIRT:
The special coemmittee appointed under tEhcfollowing resoluttions of the  House,
to wit:?Whereas accusations have been. made in the public press, founded on alleged letters of Oakes
Ames, a lepresentative f.ronm Massaeehusetts, and upon the alleged affidavits of Henry S.
McClomob,  a citizen of VWilmington, in the State of Delaicare, to the effect that members of
this House were bribed by Oakes Amtes  to pesmffbroi  certain legislative acts for the benefit of
the Union Pacific lailroad Company, by presentts of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America,
or by presents of a raliluable character derived therefrom: Therefore,
Resolved, That a special committee offive mlembers be aplpohinted by the Speaker pro,empore,
whose ditty it shall be to investigate whether any member of this House was bribed by Oakes
-Ames, or any other person or corporation, in any matter touching his. legislative dluty.
Resolved fiarther, That the conmnmittee have the right to employ a stenograp.her, and that they
be empowerved to send for persons and palpers;
beg leave to malce the following report 
In order to a clear  undtrstanding of the facts hereinafter stated as to
contracts and dealings in reference to stock of the Credit Mobilier of
Amlerica, between Mr. Oakes Alnes and others, and inemnbers of Congress,
it is.necessary to make a prelimninary statement of the  connection of
that company with the Union Pacific Railroad  Company, and their relations to each other.
The Company called the "4 Credit TMobilier of Amnerica" was incorpo.
rated by the legislature of Pennsylvania, and in 1864 control of its charter and franchises had been obtained by certain persons interested in
the Union Pacific Railroad Company, for the purpose of using it as a
construction company to build the Union Pacific road.  In September,
1864, a contract was entered  into  between tie Union Pacific Company
and E. M. Hoxie, for thle building by said Hoxie of one hundred miles
of said road from Omahla west.
T'his contract was at once assigned by H:oxie to the Credit Mobilier
Company, as it was expected to  be when  made.  Under this contract
and extensions of it some two or three hundred miles of road were built-'by the Credit Mobilier Company, btit no considerable profits appear to
have been realizel thereforom.  The enterprise of building a railroad to
the Pacific was of such vast magnitude, and was beset by so  many
hazards anid risks, that the capitalists of the country were generally
averse to invlesting in it, and, notwithstanding the liberal aid granted
by the Government, it seemed likely to fiail of completion.
In 1865 or 1866,  Mr. Oakes Ames, then  and now  a member of t;he
House from the State oft Massachusetts, andi his brother Oliver Ames,




[II                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
becanme interested in the Union Pacific Company and also in the Credit-'3Mobilier 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 personal efforts of Mir. Oakes Ames, many men of capital were induced to
embark iti the enterprise, and'to take stock in the Union Pacific Company and also in the Credit 3Mobilier Company. Among them were thefirm 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 froml Mlassachusetts, and
lIMr. Grimes, then a Senator fromn the State of Iowa. Notwithstanding
the vigorous efforts of -M1r. 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 thenrtwo 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 execution of the Oakes Ames contract hereinafter mentioned.
On the 16th day of August, 1867, a co1ntract was executed between
the Union Pacific Railroad Companly and Oakes Ames, by which Mr.
Ames contracted to build six hundred and sixty-seven miles of the
Unlion P1acific road at prices ranging from  -t12,000 to $96,O000 per mile,
amounting in the aggregate to $47,00(4)00. 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 Colnpany,, who should comply with certain conditions set out in the instrument transferring the contract to tile trustees. The Ames contract and
the transfer to trustees are incorporated in the evidence submitted, and
therefore fuirther recital of their terms is not deemed necessary.
Substantially, all the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier conmplied
with the conditions named in the tlansfer, and thus became entitled to
share in any profits said trustees mig'lt make in executing the contract.
All the large stockholders in the Union Pacifie were also stockholders
in the Credit Mobilier, and the Ames contract and its transfer to trustees 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 those
interested that by reason of the enormous prices agreed to be paid for
the work very large profits would be deri-ed 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
thlat the holders of the stock (lesired they should be.
The foregoing st.at(ment the committee think gives enough of the
historic details, and condition and va'lue of the stock, to make the following detailed facts intelligible:
3Mr. Oakes Amies was then a member of the House of R1epresentatives,
and casne to W ashington at the commenlcement of the session, about,




CREDIT  OBIOPLIER.                      III
the beginning- of December, 1867. During that month _Mr. Amles entered into contracts with a considerable number of members of Congress,
both Senators and Representatives, to let them have shares of stock
in the Credit Mobilier Company at par, with interest thereonl from
the first day of the previous July. It does not appear that in any
instance he asked any of thetse persons to pay a higher price than the par
value and interest, nor tha,t Mr. Ames used any special effort or urgency
to get these persons to take it.  In all these negotiations 3ir. Ames
did itot enter into any details as to the value of the stock or the
amnount 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 embarrassmaent as members of Congress in their legislative action. Mr. Amnis quieted such suggestions by saying.it could notfor the Union Pacific had received fromh Congress all the grants and
legislation it wantedl, and they should ask for nothing more. In some
instances those members who contracted for stock paid to Mr. Ames the
mIoney 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 aintil
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 anv of these transactions to be sales of his own
stock, but intended to fulfill all these contracts from stock beclonging to
the compaltny.
At this time there were about six hundred and fifty shares of the
stock of the conmpahiny, which had for some reason -lbeen placed in the
name of Mr. T. C. Durant, one of the leading' and active men of the
concern.,Mr. Aimes claimed that a portion of this stock slhould be assigned to hii.to enable him to fulfill engagetments he had made for stock. Mr. Durant
claimnel that he h(ad made similar engagements that he should be allowed stock to fulfill.  Mr. McComb, who was present at the time,
claimed that lie had also made engagtements for stock which he should
have stock given him to carry out. This claim of McComnb was refused,
but after the stock was assigned to Mr. Ames, MeComb insisted that
Ames should distribute some of the stock to his (M3Cocmbls) filiends, and
named Senators Bayard and Fowler, and Representatives Allison aind
Wilson, of Iowa.
It was finally arranged that three hundred and fortythree shares
of the stock of the company should be transferred to Mr. Ames to enta
ble him to perform his engagements, and that number of shares were
set over on the books of the company to Oakes Ames, trustee, to distinguish it froml the stock held by him before.  Mr. Ames at the timne
paid to the company the par of the stock and interest from the July
previous, andi this stock still stands on the books in the name of Oakes
Amies, trustee, except thirteen shares which hlve 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 Decemnber, 1867, except Mr. Scofield, of I'enunsylvania,
and it was not claimed that any obligation existed from Mir. Ames to
hinm 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                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
and all other owners of it considered worth at least double that sulm,
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 stffer by adverse legislation, and what he desired to accomplish
was to enlist strength and friends in Congress who would resist any encroachment 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 propierty." 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 thats congressional investigation and action would be invoked.
The members of Congress with wholn he dealt were generally those
who had been friiendly and favorable to a Pacific Railroad, and Mr. Alues
did not -fear or expect to find them favorable to movements hostile to
it; but he desired to stimulate their activity and watchfulness in opposition 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 Companly. O  the 9th day of December, 1867,
MBr. C. C. WVashburn, of Wisconsin, introduced in the House a bill to
regulate by law the rates of transportation over the Pacific Railroad.
lMr. 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.
Mar. Wlashburn of Wisconsin, and Mr. Washburne of Illinois. The cornrmittee 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 somne
contracts for stock in the Credit TMobilier with members of the Senate.
In public discussions of this subject the namles of memnbers of both
Houses have be&tn so connected, 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 mnenmbers of either
House, and to report the sasme 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 iPresent
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 mem]bers, the
committee hav\e anot deemed it their duty to make any special finmling of




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        V
facts as to each, leaving the house and the country to their own conclusions upon the testimony.
In regard to each of the members of the present House, the-committee deem it their duty to state specially the facts they find proved by
the evidence, which, in some instances, is painfully conflicting.
ATR.. JAKVES G(. 13LA1N13E, 01F M3AINE.
Among those who have in the public press been charged with improper 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 had conversation with Mr. Blaine in regard to taking ten shares
of the stock, and recommended it as a good investment. Upon consideration Mr. Blaine c.oncluded 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 Railroad company.
MUi. HIENLRY L. DAI)AES, OF 3MASSACHIUSETTS..MNr. Dawes had, prior to December, 1867, made some small investments in railroad bonds through Mr. Ames. In December, 1867, Mr.
Dawes applied to 1Mr. 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 money 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, but not as good asMr.
Ames thouglht, but that Mr. Ames's gua'rantee would make it a perfectly
safe investment.
Mr. Dawes thereupon con0cluded to purchase the ten shares, and on
the lth 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 June, 1868, 5Mr. Amnes received a dividend of 60 per
cent. in money on this stock, and of it paid to Mr. Dawes $400, and applied 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. (in the 9th of December, 1868, Mr. Ames and Mr.
Dawes had a settlement of their matters in which Mr. Dawes was allowed for the money he paid for the stock with 10 per cent. interest upon
it, and accounted to Mr. Ames for the $400 he lhad received as a dividend. 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 tihe stock.




VI                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
M3B. GLENNI W. SCOFIELD, OF PENNSYLVANIA.
In 1866 Mr. Scofield purchased some Cedar Rapids bonds of Mr.
Ames, and in that year they had conversations about Mr. Scofield taking
stock in the Credit Mobilier Company, but no contract was consummated. In December, 1867, Mr. Scofield applied to Mr. Ames to purchase more Cedar Rapi(ls 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 Pennsylvanians 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 anytlhing further was done
5Mr. Scofield was called homne by sickness in his family. On his return,
the latter part of January, 1868, he spoke to Mr. Ames about the stock,
when. ir. 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 therefor.
Not long after M3r. Ames informed  J1r. Scofield he could hare the
stock, but could not give him a certificate for it until he could get a
larger certificate dividend. Mlr. Scofield received the bond dividend
of 80 per cent., which was payable January 3, 1863, taking a bonld
for 81,000 and paying Mr. Ames the difference. Mr. Anmes received the
60 per cent. cash dividend on the stock in June, 1868, and paid over to
1Ir. Scofield $60, the amount of it.
Before the close of that session of Congress, which Nwas toward the
end of July, Mr. Scofield beeame, for some reason, disinclined to take
the stock, and a settlement was made between them, by which I r.
Ames was to retain the Credit 3iobilier stock and Mr. Scofield took a
thousand dollars Union Pacifie  bond and ten shares of Union Pacific
stock.
The precise basis of the settlement does not appear, neither -M-r. Ames
nor Mr. Scofield having any full data in reference 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 settlement Mr. Scofield has had no interest in the Credit Mobilier stock and
derived no benefit therefrom.
MR. JOHN A. BING-1-HAM, OF OHI00.
In December, 1867, Mr. Ames advised Mr. Binghaml 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 Mri. 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 sonme retained by Mr. Ames. The matter was not finally
adjusted between them until February, 1872, when it was settled, Mlr.
Ames retaining the twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock, and accounting to IMr. Bingllam for such dividends -upon it as Mr. Binghaln had not
already received. 5Mr. Binughamn was treated as the -real owner of the




CREDIT MOBI3LIER.                       VII:stock from the time of the agreement to tale it, in December, 1867, to
the settlement in February, 1872, and. had the benefit of all the divi4dends 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.
31R. WILLIAMI 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
Inot then prepared to pay for the stock, and Mr. Ames agreed to carry
the stock for him ukn.til he could pay for it. On the third day of January, 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. The par value of the stock
and interest thereon fromn the previous July amounted to $1,047; so that,:ifter playing for the stock, there was a balance of divideuds due Mr.
Kelley of $329. On the 23d day of June, 18688, MI. Ames gave Mr.
/Kelley a check for that sum on the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of
Representatives, and,r. Kelley receisved the money thereon.
The committee find that Mir. 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 entire 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 between Mr. Kelley and Mr. Ames on this subject. The committee do not:deem it material to refer to it in their report.
M1R. JABIES A. GARFIELD, OF OHIO.
The facts in regard to Mr. Garfield, as found by the conmmittee, are
iidentical 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
M3obilier stock, but did not pay for the same. Mr. Ames received the:80 per cent. dividend in bonds and sold themr 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 wasapaid
over to Mr. Garfield by a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Mr. Gar"field then understood this sumn 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
3Ir. Garfield and Mr. Ames, and some conversations between them (luring
this investigatition, will be found in the reportedi testimony.




VIlE                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
The.committee do not find that Mir. Ames, in his negotiations with
the persons above named, entered into anlly (detail of the relations between the Credit Mobilier Company and the Union Pacific Conipany,
or gave thein any specific information as to the amount of (lividends
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's would
in any way interfere with or embarra ss 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 present House above named, that they were aware of the object of Mr.
Ames, or that they had any other purpose in taking this stock than to
make a profitable investment. It is apparent that those who advanced
their money to pay for their stock present Illore the appearance of ordinary 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 aloine.
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 protess to have done so upon any idea of impropriety
in holding it, but for reasons affecting the value and security of the investment. But the cofinmittee 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 investment itself suspicious, and that this was one of the motives of their
action.
Tlhe 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 transferred to those with whom Mr. Amnors contracted was a circumstance firom
which a sense of imlpropriety, if not'corruption, was to be inferred.
The committee believe this is capable of explanation without such inference. The profits of building the roadl 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 tranlsfer to the trustees, so that a transfer from Mr. Ames to new
holders would cut off the right to dividends from the trustees, unlless
they also became parties to the agreement; and this the committee believe to be the true reason why no transfera 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 1868 Mr. McComb commenced
a suit against the Credit Mobilier Company and Mr. Ames and others,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       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 pendin g. If McComnb prevailed in that suit, Mr. Ames might be
compelled to surrender so nmuch of the stock assigned to him 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
had 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 himself; or was aware that Mr. Ames had any, nor did either of them suppose he was guilty of any impropriety or even indelicacy in becoming a
purchaser of this stock. Had it appeared that these gentlemen were
aware of the enormous dividends upon this stock, and how they were to
be earned, we could not thus 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 sufficient to complete 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 neverintended 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 inculnber the road by a mortgage
prior to that of the Government to the full extent, whether the money
was needed forl 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 matter 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 Oovernment as if they had sold their bonds and divided the money
without going through the form of denominating them profits on building 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 in,
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
affecting his interest. But, after accepting thE position of a member ot
Congress, we do not think lie 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 MOBILIER.
But it is not so much to be feared that in such case an interested member would vote as that he would exercise his influence by personal appeal 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 t6 allow himself to be brought into this temptation.  Ve
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 blroader view still which we think ought to be taken.'This country is fast becoming filled with gigantic corporations, wielding
and controlling immense aggregations of money, and thereby commanding great influence and power. It is notorious in many State legislatures that these influences are often controlling, so that in effect 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 brought great discredit upon.
-the body, far more, we believe, than there were facts to justify.
But such is the tenduency 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 oil 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 they lose respect for the law-makers.
For these reasons we think 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 inot onily 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 committee 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 judlgmnent 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 ain offer of some of this stock, foulld 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 recommendation
by the committee of the House.
MlR. JAMES BROOKS, OF 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 IRailroad,
both in Congress and in the public press. After persons interested in.
the Union Pacific road had obtained control of the Credit Mobilier charter and organized unncer it for the purpose of making it a construction
lomnpany 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.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        XI
During this period lMr. Brooks had talked with Dr. Durant 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, 186;7, 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. Dura-nt, and, claimed that he should
have two hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock. It does not appear
that Mr. Brooks claimed he he had any legal contract for-stock that he
could enforce, or that Durant considered himself in any way legally
bound to let hinm have any, but still, on account 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 hundred 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 bonals, 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. l)urant, Mr. Brooks said that
as he was a Government director of the TUnionl Pacific road, and as the
law provided such directors should not be stockholders in that company, he would not hold this stock, and directed Dr. Durant to transfer
it to Charles iH. Neilson, his son-in-lawT. The whole negotiation with
Durant was conducted by Mr. Brooks himself, and Neilson had nothing to do withl 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
NTeilson is dated l)ecember 26, 1867.1 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 Neilson, nor, so far
as we can learn from. either Brooks or Neilson, was any account or
memorandum of the tr-ansaction kept by 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 thehundred shares.
Neither Brooks nor Durant thought of any siuch 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 to fifty additional shares of the stock,
by virtue of the purchase of the one hundred shares of Durant.
This was claimed by Mar. Brooks as his right by virtue of the 50




XII                     CREDIT MOB'ILIER.
per cent. increase of the stock hereinbefore described.  ir. Dillon said
he did hot know how that was, buat he would consult the leading stockholders, 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, anid the name of
Neilson inserted. The committee are satisfied that the stock was first
entered on the books in Mr. Brooks's name.
Mr. Neilson soon after called for the certificate for the fifty shares.
and on the 29th of February, 1868, the certificate was issued to him7
and the entry on the stock-book wvas 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 timle,
as he was allowed to receive the same percentage of (ividend(s on these
fifty shares that had previously been paid on the hundred. This matter
has never'been adjusted between Neilson and Dillon. Brooks ando
Neilbon both testify they never paid Dillon. Dillon thinks he has
received his pay, as he has not now the collaterals in his possession. If
he has been paid it is probable that it was from the collaterals in some
form. The subject has never been named between Dillon and Neilson
since Dillon a(lvanced the money, and no one connected with the transaction seems able to give any further light upon it. The whole business
by which these fifty shares were procured was clone 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 familiarity 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 thetm   The stockal  t this time by the
stockholders was considered worth three or four times its par value.
Neilson 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 untounded claim, to have for $5,(000, stock
worth $15,000 or $20,000? Mr. McComb swears that he heard conversation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. John B. Alley, a large stockholder,
and one of the executive committee, in which Mr. Brooks urgedl that
he should have the additional fifty shares, because he was or would procure 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."
PMr. Brooks and Mr. Alley both deny having had any such conversation, or th'at Mr. Brooks ever nad(le such a statement to Mr. Alley. If,
therefore, this mlatter rested wholly upon the testimony of Mr. McComb,
the comlnittee would not feel justified in finding that Mr. Brooks procured the stock by such use of his, official position; but all the circnm:
stances seem to point exactly in that direction, and we can find no other
satisfactory solution of the question above propounded. Whatever




CRE;l)IT MOBILIER.                     XIII
claim itr. 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 son in-law, we believe, from the circumstances
attending the whole transaction, that he obtained it knowing that it was
yielded to its official position and influence, and with the intent to
secure his favor anld 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 M~Ir. Brooks to be the real fand 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 hundred and fifty sharies 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 $16,000 of TUnion Pacific bonds,
which Neilson says he gave him as collateral security, and to draw the
interest upon all but $59000. 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 lhe was allowed as being Christmas and New
Yeat's presents. Neilson says that during the last summer he borrowed
14,0.0 of 3Ir. Brooks, and he now owes Mr. Brooks nearly as much as
the collihterals; hut, according to his testimony, Mr. Brooks for four
Y-ears held $16,000 in bonds as security for $1,000, and received the interest on 811,000 of the collaterals. No accoJints 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 presents 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, wlhich seem to have been applie(l toward paying.fbr
the fifty shares. Without further comlrien.t on the evidence, the committee find that the one hundred and fifty shares of stock appearing on
the books ol' the Credit Mobilier in the name of Neilson 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, arnd was so connected with
Dr. Durant, that he nmust 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 knownI the cause of the sudden
increase in value of the Credit Mobilier stock, and how the large expected
protits were to be made. We have already expressed our views of the
propriety of a member of Congress becoming the owner of stock, possessing 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 watch over the interests of the Government in
the toad and to see that they were protected and preserved. To insure
such fMaithfulness on the part of Government directors, Congress wisely
provi(ded that they should not be stockholders in the road. Mr. Brooks
rea(ily saw that, thought becoming a stockhilder in the Credit Mobilier
was not forbidden by the letter of the law, yet it was a violation of its
spirit anl essence, alnd therefore had the stock placed in the name of
his son ill-a, w. The transfer of the (Oaikes xAmes contract to the trustees




XIV                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
and the building of the road under that contract, from which the enormous dividends were derived, were all during Mir. 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 believed this could not have been done without an entire disregard of his
official obligation and duty, and that while appointe(l to guard the public interests in the road lie 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 recommend to the House
upon these facts, the committee encounter a question which has been
much debated: Has this House power and jurisdiction t6 inquire concerning offenses committed by its members prior to their election, and to
punish them by censure or expulsion? The committee are unanimous
upon the right of jurisdiction of this IHouse over the cases of Mr. Ames
and Mr. Brooks, upon the facts founded in regard to them. Upon the
question of jurisdiction the committee present the following views:
The Constitution, in the fifth section of the first article, defines the
power of either House as follows:
"' Each House may detertine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly beha;vior, and with the concurrence of twothirdls 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
munst 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
antd unworthy incumbent from office, and though a judgment of impeachment may to some extent operate as punishmeut, that is niot its
principal object. Members of Congress are not subject to be impeached,
but may be exl)elled, 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 tends to bring the body
into contempt and disgrace.
In both cases it is a power of purgation and purification to be exercised for the public slafety, and. in the case of expulsion, for the protection and character of the House. The Constitution definaes the causes
of impeachment, to wit, " treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." 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 thecauses enumerated was intended to be restricted to those which might
occur after appointment to a civil office, so that a civil officer who had
secretly committed such offense before his appointment should not be
subject upon detection and exposure to be convicted and removed from
office. Every conlsideration of justice and sound policy would seeml 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 whattime that pollution had attached.
If this be so in regard to other civil officers, under institutions Whicl




CREDIT AMOBILIER.                        XV
rest upon the in telligence and virtue of the p)eople, can it well be claimed
that the law-making RIepresentative may be vile and criminal with implunity, l)rovided the evidences of his corruption are found to antedate
his election?
In the report made to tlhe Senate by John Quincy Adams ill December, 1807, upon tile case of John Smnith, of Ohio, the following language-is used: " The power of expelling a member for misconduct resul ts, on thel
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 conmmit the deposit to the keeping of worthless characters. But when a
man whoin his fellow-citizens have honored with their confidence on a
pledgce of a spotless reputation, has degraded himself by the commission
of infamuous crimes, which become suddenly and unexpectedly revealed.
to the world, defective indeed woultl be that institution which should
be impotent to discard from its bosomn the contagion of such a memlber;,
which should have no rernedy of amputation to apply until the poison
had reached the heart.."
The case of Stlith was tlhat of a Senator, who, after his election, but
not during a sessioni of thle Senate, haed been involved in the treasonable
Bonspliracy of Aaron Burr. Yet the reasoning is general, and was to.
antagonize sonie positions which had been taken in the case of Marshall,,
a Senator friom Kentucky; the Senate in that case having, among other
reasons, declined to take jurisdiction of the charge for the reason that
the alleged offense had been conmmitted prior to the Senator's election,
and was matter cognizable by the crimninal courts of Kentucky. Noneof the commentators upon the Constitution or upon parliamentary law
a.ssign any such litnitation as to the time of the commission of the offetlse,.
or the nature of it, which shall control anId 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. Ma.5y, in his Parliam-entary 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.
WtlhenL it is remembered that the framrers of our Constitution'were,
familiakr with the parliamentary law of England, and must have had in
mindl the then recent contest over Wilkes's case, it is impossible to conclude tha.t they meant to limit the  liscretion of the Houses as to thle
causes of expulsion. It is a received principle of construction that theConstitution 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
quali-fying and restricting tile manner of its exercise, assigning no limnitations to the subject-matter itself, tley must be assumed to have intended to leave that to be determined according to established principles, as a high prerogative Iower to be exercised according to the
s'und discretion of the body. It was not to be apprehended that twothirds of the  leplresentatives of the people would ever exercise this
power in any capricious or arbitrary mlanner, or trifle with or tramnple.
upon constitutional rights. At the samle time it could not be foreseen.
what necessities for self-preservation or self-purification might arise il.
the legislative body. Therefore it was that they did not, aind 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 MOBILIER.
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 supposed by many to have been established and declared in the famous
case of John Wilkes before alluded to. A short statement of that case
will show how fallacious is that supposition. Wilkes lihad been elected
a member of Pailiament 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 oflense on the 3d of February, 1769. Being
againl elected on the 17th of Februa.ry, 1769, the commons passed the
following resolution: "' That John Wilkes, esq., laving been in this session 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 Commnons declared the seat vacant and
ordered a new election. At this election TWilkes was again elected by
1,143 votes, against 296 for his competitor, Luttrell.
On the 15th of April, 1769, the house decided that by the previous
action Wilkes had become ineligible, and that, the votes given for limi
were void and could not be counted, and gave the seat to Luttrell. Subsequently, in 1783, the House of Commllonll declared the resolution of
February 17, 1769, which had asserted the inea)a(aity of an expelled
member to be re-elected to the same Parliament, to be subversive of the
rights of the electors, and expungued 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 comnmitted prior to his election; the point decidlel, and afterwar't most properly expunged, was that expulsion per se rendered the exi)elled nieanber legally ineligible, and that votes cast for him could not be counted.
Wilkes's ofiense was of purely a p )litica.l character, not involving moral
turpitude; he had attacked the ministry in the l)ress, and the p)roveedings against him in P'arliament were  then claimed to he 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 faimous Junius letters, and several of therm
are devoted to the discussion of them. The d(lctrine 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 that
cause as often as he shall be elected.
The case of Matteson, in the House of Representatives, has also bftenbeen quoted as a precedent for this limlitation 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, however, 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, hlad a lost important influence in determining the action of the House in his case.
The committee have lno occasion in this report to discuss the question
as to the power or duty of the House in a case where a constituenley,
with a full knowledge of the objectionable dllaracter of a Iana have
selected hinm to be their Representative. It is hardly a case to be supposed that any constituency, with a full knowledge that a matn had
been guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude, would elect him.




CREDIT iMOBiLIER.                    XVII
The na jority of thle colanittee are not prepared to concede suich 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 foril 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 offense 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 owns character, or the reproach and disgrace upon the body, if they allow him fo 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 distinction, 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 reelected 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.
l it seems to us absurd to say that an election has given a man political absolution for anl 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 people.
Such exercise of the power would be wrongful, and -violative of the
principles of the Constitution, 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 publie integrity and public honor in all cases las they present themselves.
Nor do we imagine that the people of the United States will charge
their servants with invading their privileges when they confine themselves to the preservation of a standard of official 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
H. Rep. 77 — ii




XVIII                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
a subject of congressional action in future Congresses as in the Fortieth.
The influences brought to bear on members were as likely to be operative upon them in the ftture as in the present, and were so intenaded.
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 o' the committee, MIes'srs. Niblack and McCrary, prefer
to express no opinion on the general jurisdictional qaestions discussed in the report, anld rest their judgment, wholly on the groaned last
stated.
In relation to MrIr. Amites, he sold to several members of Congress stock
of the Credit i.obilier Company, at par, when it was worth double that
amount or more, with the purpose and intent thereby to influenee their
votes and decisions tpon matters to come before Congress.
The facts found in the report as to 31r. Brooks show that he used the
influence of his official positions as member of Congress and Government
director in the Union Pacific Railroad Compainy, to get fifty shares of
the stock of the Credit 31obilier Company, at par, when it was worth
three or four times that sum,  knowing that it was given to him with intent to influence his votes and decisions ii Conglress, 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 delivery 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 Representatives 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 perston 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 Representatives 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 procuritg 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 ppart thereof, if an officer or person holding




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      XIX
any such place of trust or profit as aforesaid, shall forfeit his office\ or
place; and any person so convicted nnder this section shall forever be
disqualified to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit 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 provided.
The committee need not enlarge upon the dangerous character of these
ofSenses. The sense of Congress is shown by the severe penalty denounced by the statute itself  The offenses were not violations of private rights, but were against the very life of a constitutional Govern7ment 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 ability.
They have proceeded with the greatest care and deliberation, for while
they desired to do their fall 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 Representative 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 Representative in this House from
the State of New York, did procure the Credit IMobilier Company to
issue and deliver to Charles HE. Neilson, 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 action, and also to influence the action of said Brooks as a Government
director in the Union Pacific Railroad Company: Therefore,
Resolved, That Mr. James Brooks be, and he is hereby, expelled from
his seat as a member of this House.








CREDIT MOBILIER.
WASHITNGTON 9D. C., Thursday, Decerber 12, 1872.
The committee met at 10 a..m.  The following members of the committee were present:
Mr. LUKE P. POLAND, (chairman,) of Vermont.
Mr. N. P. BANKS, of Massachusetts.
Mr. GEo. W. McCRnARY, of Iowa.
Mr. Wm. E. NIBLACK, of Indiana.
3Mr. WMr. M. M3ERRICK, of MIlaryland.
Mr. Oakes Ames and R. C. AcT3\urtrie, his counsel  Henry S. MeComb, with Jeremiah S. Black and Samuel C-. Thompson, counsel, were
also present.
JAMES G. BLAINE, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 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 fnished, I shall, of
course, answer any questions which the committee may desire to ask by
way of examination or cross-examination.
And I wish to state, without reservation or qualification, that I never
owned a share of stock in the Credit Mobilier in my life, either by gift,
purchase, or in any way whatever. Nor did I ever receive, either directly or indirectly, a single cent derived in any manner or shape from
the Credit Ilobilier or from the Union Pacific Railroad Company. No
person holds, or ever did hold, for me, any stock in either corporation
as agent or trustee, or in any capacity whatever. I wish my testimony
to be taken as exhaustive and as intended to exclude every form or
phase of ownership in the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Raailroad
Company, both past and present.
I desire further to state that some titme in the spring of 1868S, 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 3Mobilier.  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 ten hundred and sixty dollars 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 law-suit 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 a3/r.
Ames's offer.
I beg to say, however, in justice to Mr. Ames, but more especially in
justice to myself, that it never once occurred to me that he was attempting to bribe me, or in any way influence my vote or action as a Representative. I understood him to say that he was the owner of more of
the stock than le wished to carry, and wNas offering some of it to friends
1 X:




2              -        CREDIT MOBILIER.
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.
BMr. Ames never offered me any of the stock at any other time than as
I have just narrated, nor was any of the stock &ver offered to me at any
time by "any other person or corporation."
By the CHIAIRMaAN:
Question. Have you any knowledge in relation to any dealing between
i3r. Ames and any other member of the House of the character referred
to?-Answer. None whatever, and I never heard of any until this publication. Mr. Ames is present, and I desire to ask him whether the
statement I have just -made is correct.
Mir. AMES. Yes, sir; your statement corresponds substantially with
my recollection of the facts.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. Have you any knowledge of any other imember of Congress owning 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 mlyself, as just given in my testimony.
WASHINGTON, D. C., Fr iday, Deceimiber 13, 1872.
The committee met at  10 a. m., all the members present, except Mr.
Banks.
Mir. Ames and Mr. McCormb, with their counsel, were also present.
HENRY  S. MICCoMx  sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMATN:
Question. State to the committee what knowr]edge or information you
have in regard to shares of Credit MIobilier 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 answers. 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, 1' Where did you gain your information 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 America -A. I am.
Q. Were you connected with it otherwise than as a stockholder, and
are you familiar with its history and proceedings? —A. I 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
I speak of the present officers I refer to Sidney Dillon, president, and
John 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 fronm my personal examination.
Q. Was Oakes Ames a 3ember of that company? — A. He was a stockholder.
Q. Was he an officer?-A. He was never an officer, but was an intimate 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-five shares 1
-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 Amnes 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
Biobilier corporation was the result of a charter obtained by a man
named Duff Green from the Pennsylvania legislature, called the " Pennsylvania 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 Railroad. The
Pennsylvania legislature made an amendment in the charter allowing a
branch office to be in New York, and providing that it should be managed 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 Companywhether it was managed in the interest of and managed by persons connected with the Pacific Railroad? —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 Railroad? —A. Yes, sir. The idea
of the organization was to relieve the directors and shareholders of the
-Union Pacific Railroad Company from any individual responsibility in
building the road and enabling them to share the profits in building the
Union Pacific Railroad. That was the design. It was obtained to cover
up anything that might have been done; to relieve individuals from responsibility. 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 sharreholder were you -A I have he 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, I have frequently asked to




4                         CREDIT MOBILIER.
look at the books since the organization has been under its present management, 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.
Yes7 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 efifort on my part to obtain
the shares from the company amicably.
Q. About what time was the suit commenced8 -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 it?-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 3iobilier, two hundred and
fifty shares at one time and ninety-three shares, or whatever there was,
subsequently.
Q. These shares appear to be assigned dn the books to Oakes Ames,
as trustee?-A. Yes, sir; that was to distinguish them from his own stock.
Hle was a large holder of the stock of the company.
Q. And you understand these tliree hundred and seventy-five shares
to be the shares you claim? Now, will you state what knowledge you
have in relation to the disposition of these shares, or any of them, by
Mr. Ames? —A. B3y knowledge is from 3ir. 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 committee may examine them,
and compare them with the copies, and I desire the originals to be returned to me.   I now hand to the committee the original and photographed copy of a letter from Mr. Ames, dated January 25, 1868.
The letter was read and placed in eviidence, as follows:
WVASHIXNG-TON, Jans. 25, 1868.
H. S. MCcC0oarnB, Esq.:
DEAR Sin: Yours of the 23cld is at hand, in which you say Senatuors Bayard & Fowler
have written you in relation to their stock. I have spoken to Fowler, but not to Bayard. I have never been introduced to Bayard, but will see him soon. You say I must
not put too much in one locality. I have assigned as far as I have gone to 4 from
Mass., 1 from N. H., 1 Delaware, 1 Tenn., 1 Ohio, 2 Penn., 1 Ind., 1 Maine, & I have 3
to place, which I shall put where they will do most good to us. I am here on the
spot, and can better judge where 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. Alley is opposed to the division of the bonds; says we will need them, &c. &c. I should think
that we ought to be able to spare them, with Alley and Cisco on the finance committee-we used to be able to borrow when we had no credit and debts pressing. WVe
are now out of debt and in good credit —what, say you about the bond dividend-a part




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                               5
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 them what they would get as
dividend, and they expect, I think, when the bonds the parties receive as the 80 per
cent. dividend, we better give them the bonds-it will not ain'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 i- that was Underwood's. I
have taken half, Quigley 1 and you -1. J. Carter wants a part of it, at some future
day we are to surrender a part to hinm.
Yours, truly,
OAKES AMES.
Q. In whose  handwriting gwas the 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. You 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, Itailroad, and Bridge Company, running
between Alexandria and Washington.
Q. WVhat other letters have you.-A. The second letter is dated January 30, 1868.  I hand the committee the original with the photographed
copy.
The letter was read and placed in evidence, as follows:
WASHINGTON, Jran. 30, 1868.
H. S. IMcCoxf:
DEAR Sin: Yours of the 28th is at hand, inclosing copy of letter from, or rather to,
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. WVe 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 us, 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,
OATKES AMES.
We stand about like this:
Bonds, 1st mortgage, rec'd on 525 miles, at 16 m............. -8, 400, 000
"    "'  "  15  "   o48 mA..-.............    -   720, 000
""'" 100  "   a 48 m.-......................   4 800,000
13, 920, 000
10,000,000 sold & to sell to pay our debts................................. 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 da.-.................................. 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 3- of the work done. ill advance of
track, if we desire it.
Oakes Ames's list of names as showed to-day to me for C. M.:




6                       CREDIT MOBILIER.
Blaine, of Maine, 3,000.
Patterson, N. I-Iamp., 3,000.
Wilson, Mass., 2.
Painter, Rep. for Inq., 3.
S. Colfax, Speaker, 2.
Elliott, Mass., 3.
Dames, "  2.
Boutwell,"  2.
Bingham & Garfield, Ohio.
Schofield & Kelley, Penn.
Fowler, Tenn.
FEB'Y 1,'6s.
Q. This list of names is not in MIr. Ames's handwriting; in whose handwriting is it?-A. In my own.
Q. How came you to make that list?-A. I wrote those names as hMr.
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 Railroad Company in New York, just as we sit opposite each other now at
this table;' when he read I wrote the names. This was early in Febrauary', 1868. 3fy reason for writing that list of names was that I had
before written a list which he had given 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 IMr. Ames?-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 witlbh  Jr. 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. I would like the committee to go through
with their examination with other witnesses before this letter is brought
in. I will 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 mande to the letter Mr. Ames had received from you, inclosing a copy of a letter to dro
King. Have you that letter?-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 iMr. King is that? —A. John L. King, of Springfield, Massachusetts, ivho was a shareholder and an acquaintance of all these gentlemen.
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 3i1r. Blaine,yesterday. That is the entire reason
I have for withholding it. Because in this letter, in addition to speaking 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 MOBILIER.                             7
The letter was reat1 and placed in evidence, as follows:
WASEIINGTON, Feb. 22, 1868,
3H. S. McCoNI13, Esq.:
DEA1E SIR: Yours of the 21st is at hand; am glad to hear 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. I return you the paper by mail that you ask
for. Vou ask me if I will sell some of my U. P. iR. R. stock. I will sell some of it at
parC. M. of A. I don't care to sell. I hear that Mr. Bates offered his at $300, 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 Mobilier to sell here. We want more friends in this
Congress, & if a man will look into the law, (& it is difficult to get them to dclo 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 1lth.
Yours, truly,
OAIKES 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 opportunity to examnmine my papers after I received notice to come here as a
witness.
Q. If you. have other correspondence which thas bearing upon this
subject, we desire you to produce it.-A. [ will do any thing that is demanded of me by the committee.
Q. State when you first had any conversation with 3Mr. Ames upon
this subject.-A. Some time in the early part of January.
Q. Where was that conversation held t-A, In INew York. I had been
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 persons present, that it
would not intefere t with my claim.  That was done at a meeting of the
seven trustees who were building the Union Pacific Railroad, under
Oakes Ames's contract.  The meeting was in New York, in a room occupied by Mr. Durant, on the corner of Cedar and Nassau streets.  I
did finally sign the paper under protest, 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 affect my claim in any manner.
Q. Have you that paper I-A. They have it; I have not. I never had
a copy of it.
Q. Are you able to state any more particularly the contents of that
paper than you have done?-A. My recollection of the statement made
was, that so much of the Credit 3Mobilier stock should be allowed to be
taken by 3Ir. 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 trustees.
Q. At that meeting was anything said as to what disposition  inr.
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?-A. I could ascertain the time from
the books of the company if I had access to them.  I thilk it was early
in January, 1868.




8                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. This p)aper was signed by yourself and others?-A. Yes, by five
or six.
Q. Do you remember the number of shares authorized to be taken by
M1r. 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.
Jir. Ames a1lso stated that it should not affect my claim.
Q. Do you understand that the stock taken by JMr. Ames was the
identical stock you were claiming?I-A. No, sir; I did not understand
any such thing at that time. It was so much of the stock of the conmpany. 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 ] r. Ames every few days. I was
in WTashington a good deal, and IMr. Amnes was in New York a good
deal.
Q. Do jou remember where you had y our first talk with him about
it?- A. It was in the office of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in
[New York. The thing was bronght to my attention, and I asked Mtr.
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 sa y 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 dividends 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.  think about 260 per cent.
lr. Ames states that he would not sell his own, although M1r. Grimes
might sell some of his at 350, and this was about the time he claims to
have sold this stock at par.
Q. W;as this first conversation prior to the date of these letters? —A.
O, yes.
Q. NSTow state as nearly as you can precisely the conversation between
you and Mr. 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.
B[r. Ames had shown me a list of names of members of Congress prior
to this which I made a copy of as near as I 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 mlemorandum from what M3r. Ames said? —A.
I did not copy it from anything. I put it down from his personal remarks. Prior to the time of receiving these letters, in a conversation
we had in New York, he had occasion to give me the names of the members
of Congress to whom he -had given this stock, and I took a memoranduma 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. Ares from a memorandunm-book he had. I could not get the




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        9,
initials of the namues, and I 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 listJ which I made a memorandum  of,
he inclu.ded Senator Bayard's name. ~When Mr. Ames told me
that he was going to give the stock he had to members of Congress, some days after the paper was signed I asked him who he was
going to give it to, and he gave me the names of some who are on
this paper and of some who are not. He said to me at that time, I remember, that he had given stock to 1ir. Wilson, of Miassachusetts, Bingham, of Ohio, Speaker Colfax, and some others. I remember Mr. Bingham'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
Speakelr 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 getting 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 14th of January, 1868, and immediately sent a copy of it to
BMr. 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. AAmes had some stock
to sell, and I stated that he was to pay for it if he got it. I sent a copy of
this letter, as I stated, to IMr. 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 saicd " No, I gave that one to Senator Conkling, of New
York; and thatshe 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 you the first conversation
after the meeting in New 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 conversation you had with Mr. Ames?1-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 occurred.
Q. Now, state a little more fully and particularly the transaction when
you made the memorandum on this letter. — A. I made it early in February. I do not remember the date. It was very soon after I received the
letter. Mr. Ames happened to be in New York, and I had his letter
with me.
Q. You produced the letter to him?-A. Yes, sir; I produced the let



1 0                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
ter to him. That is the time he made the explanation about Mr. Conkling. tHe had previously 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 Mir. Ames
read there?-A. Yes, sir; he had a list of the names on a memorandium
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 inik. 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 e?-A. Yes, sir; and
that is the reason why I only wrote the last name in each case, because
I wanted to follow hinm as rapidly as he read.
Q. This puts down Blaine, of MINaine, at 3. Do you intend that to be
$3,000?,-A. Yes, sir; $3,000. That is par value for the stock, thirty
shares.
Q. This memorandum puts down %Wilson, vMassachusetts, 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. 0, no; on the contrary, he stated that it was hell
by him as their trustee.'Q. What was his language, as nearly as you can remember, in relation to what arrangement had been made with any of them?-A. The
statement that he made to nme was that he had said to A. B. C., mentioning 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 0S per cent. in bonds, which of itself
was four-fifths of the par value of the stock.
Q. You say that the par valiue itself was paidl 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 iMr. Ames say how this was' done?-A. He said he was to receive the bonds, convert them into money, and pay back the par value
to the company. You understand that I never said any of these gentlemen got any stock whatever. I only state the information I received
from M3r. Ames.
By Mr. MC1CRARJY:
Q. What was the value of the stock at the time, in your estimation? —A. Mr. Ames estimated its. value about that time as 350, and he
would not sell his at that price, although Mir. Grimes might a part of
his at 350. 3yv understanding was that it was worth about 600 or 700 a
share, including prior dividends.
By 3r.! NiBLACrC:
Q. What Mir. Grimes was that?I-A. Senator Grimes, of Iowa. He
stood on the books of the Credit Mobilier as a subscriber to the stock
from the beginning. MI[r. Ames, however, was a half-owner of his stock.
They owned it jointly. A1r. Ames collected dividends and divided them
with MIr. Grimes. It was an honorable subscription made from the ibeginning, and before any dividends were paid. I knew AMr. Grimes well,
and k-new him to be an honorable, high-toned gentleman.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      1 1
By the CIHAIRMAN:
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. lMr. Ames being a large holder of the stock, I knew that while
Mr. Alley was the nominal head, that he would follow, generally, anything that IMr. 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. Hie
finally came out with the remark, 4 There is no stock for you. You consented 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. Nothing, except that he had given the
stock-that he had appropriated it to them. Hle 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 named in your memorandum' —A. I think he claimed
that Mr. Brooks, member of Congress, got what was apportioned to him
out of this amount. fMr. 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. W~as this stock put into his hands.-A. I do not know. I think
the stock M3r. Brooks received was given by Mir. Alley's direction, andnot by that of Mr. Ames.
Q. 3ir. 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 CIAImitIAN. 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 Mobilieri 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 Government director, of the Union Pacific Iailroad. I overheard such conversation between M3r. Brooks and Mr. Alley on several occasions; Ilr.
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 3Mr. Neilson's full name?-A. Charles H. Neilson, I think.
That was along in the fall of 1868.
Q. It was subsequent to these letters that you have produced — A.
0, yes.
Q. You understand that that fifty shares of stock went to Air. Brooks,
and that he had the advantage of them without making any payment?-.
A. Yes, sir; with all the accretions. The par value of $100 a share
was paid out of the accrued dividends. I tried to follow this thing up
myself by getting access to the Credit IMobilier books, but they were
always sealed books to me. I was never allowed to look into them.




12                  CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Do you understand that the fifty shares which went to Mr. Brooks
were a portion of the shares put into Mlr.Ames's hands? —A. Only from
Mr. Ames's statement that thirty-two shares of that amount put into
his hands went to make' up the amount which was to go to Mir. 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 M1r. Ames's side
had demanded, before proceeding with my cross-examination, the production 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 my further cross-examination until
the letters were produced. I said to himn, " 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 letters, and I will keep no copies of them." MIr. Ames replied, exhibiting
some petulance of feeling, "Y'ou can publish any letters you have from
me; everybody knows that members of Congress are bribed, and everybody 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 31r. 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 examinatibn may bring to'
mind something I have forgotten.
Q. Have you any-knowledge in relation to transfers and arrangements about stock between Mr. Ames -and 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, except 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 anybodyv —A. I have not.
Q. Have you made any arrangement yourself, in any way, with any




CREDIT  IOBILIER.                      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?-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 Railroad 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. C. 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 Tir. NIB-LACK:
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 was never solicited. I knew
very little about the transactions of the Credit AMobilier 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 disposition of this stock? —A. No, sir; I did not.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. I understand your 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.
Reference is made in one of Mr. Ames's letters to ZDurant'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 investigation into the affairs of
the Union Pacific Railroad. 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. Reference to the records of
Congress would fix about the day, and show what iMr. Washburners
miiotion was, and what Mr. Colfax did.
Q. You stated that you were solicited to sign a paper contributing aportion of the general stock to be used by Mr. Ames for distribution
among members of Congress?-A. No, sir; 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
competent for the president of the company to have sold any of the




14                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
stock in the treasury, if it had been on a fair basis, without any such assent 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 have stated.
Q. Was the use to be made of it discussed?-A. No; 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;
they 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 arrangement, 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 justLasked 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 distribution 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
1lth of November, 1868; in the original bill I made no reference to members of Congress.
By Mr. McCRARtY:
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 thinkhe got it at several different times; my recollection is
that the first he drew was fifty shares, and then there was a second installment; 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, " 0, 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 tiree. He did not know
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 andproduce 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. NIsLAcK:
Q. You referred to Mr. James A. Bayard, of Delaware, and spoke of
a letter from him in regard to the matter. What has become of that
letter — A. Mr. Bayard's original letter I think I have among my papers. A copy of it was sent' to Mr. Ames in Wtashington.
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.
iMr. AMES stated that he did not wish to cross-examine the witness.
VWASHINGTON, D. C., December 17, 1872.
The committee met at 10 a. mn.; all the members present.
Mir. McMurtrie, counsel for Oakes Ames, read to the committee the
direct testimony of Mr. Oakes Ames, which had been reduced to writing, 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 difference 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 successfully a gigantic undertaking, by which I was ultimately compelled to
ask an extension from my creditors, I had persuaded a number of persons to agree to take this stock, and when I applied for and got this
little remnant of the unallotedc stock the values had very materially
changed. MaIy object-and it was concealed from no one —in getting the
stock was to fulfill my engagements at a timhe that the value was very
different. Mr. McComb conceals that fact and invents another, viz, that
the stock was got forfututre contracts or dealings; and the difference in
value between the subscription price and the market-value he cofnverts
into a bribe.
To enable the committee to appreciate the facts I will go back a little.
The last grant of privileges to the Union Pacific Railroad 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 Fisk,) and
the right as a national corporation to have our causes heard in the Federal courts.
I propose now to state the facts to which Mr. McComb has referred




16                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 happily are known to many.
At the time this last subsidy, a reward for accomplishing the great
national object of connecting the Pacific and the Atlantic by rail, was
offered to the public, I had no conncetion 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. No 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, but 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 necessary that we should be our own contractors, and thus receive for building 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 Railroad, 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 one
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 —you will perceive why
I was seeking for associates and assistance.
We wanted capital and influence. Influence not on legislation alone,
but on credit, good, wide, and a general favorable feeling. If the community had confidence in our ultimate success, that success was insured.
But if there was distrust or ill-will, the reverse 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 obtain their influence, have I not the right to ask you to
infer that I meant a proper influence? Can I not appeal to the openness of my statements at the time and the utter absence of concealment
on my part, that I intended nothing that ought to brand me with disgrace?
At the start a number of public men had embarked with us. 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, andl
this certainly on my part with the expectation that they would reap a
profit. 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 couldt;
not remember, and I find that some differ from me as to our arrangeiments. But it is very disagreeable to come in conflict as to.past facts,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        1 7
known only to the disputants. Nor is it materia, for me to name persons 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
charged was obtained to enable me to fiulfll  these engagements. It is
certainly true that those I had expected to take the stock I thus received 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 Mlobilier and all our profits
belonged to them.
Mr. ~KGcComb 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 object in issuing this stock to me was the corrupting of members.
The result was, most of these men dleclined the stock, and those who
had long since paid me the price on may promise to get the stock, asked
me to return the money, and I did so.
There was another motive I now recall that had arn 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 connected with it. Just before the 47,000,000 contract was made, a dispute
among us resulted in the compulsory abandoni ent of the corporation
and this contract was made with me, and by me put in trustees for the
persons who were stockholders. Ai most serious litigation has now determined that the corporation w;as not the owner of this contract, but
that we had really assumed the position 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 ime. You were told that the stock was, in January, 1868, worth more
than par. That is true, though the value stated by Mr. 3 icComb is very
much exaggerated. The best test is actual sales. These were made at
160 or thereabout.
When 1 desired to secure the stock to enable me to fulfill my previous
engagements,.not (as is falsely asserted) to purchase congressional influence, 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 advantage. aMr. 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 mline. 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 engagements. The president of the company declined acting on Mr. AicComb's
2x




18.              CREDIT MOBILIER.
verbal authorization,' and required a written consent by the large stockholders. 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. 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 designated, say, to Durant parties $37,000, and Ames
parties $28,000.
JOHN DUFF.
THOS. C. DURANT.
S. BARDWELL. 
OAKES AMES.
OLIVE RP AMES.
JO4HN B. ALLEY.
C. S. JSBUSHyNELL.
SIDNEY DILLON.
I1. S. McCOMIB.
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.
WVM. H, MtACY.
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 informed 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 oath long before anything
like this was anticipated. Mir. }McComb's statement of my avowed purpose is simply false, and what I did avow was as innocent as my own
subscription in the first 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 fufil my proumises: and to show him that, in making these




CRIEDIT MOBILIER.                       19
engagements, I had endeavored to select the purchasers inll 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 declined talring the stock. IMr. McComb 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 connected, or expected to jbe, with that stock. It is,. I believe, true that he
did ask -who was to get the stock, and I have no doubt I mentioned the
names 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 gentlemen to say for themselves whether on my part, or theirs, there was the
most distant thought at the time of any impropriety, any Gmore than
there would have been in their buying of me so many shares of nationalbank stock.
I understand the committee as intimating that I was to state all the
particular instances in which I had transactions with members of Congress in reference to the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific lRailroad.
For the purposes of this inquiry they may stand as one. And I understand the.inquiry to have reference to all acts of mine which are of the
character or or supposed character of the particulars on which the charge
is based.
My connection with the road began by a subscription to the Credit
Miobilier in August, 186:5.  iMy determination to do so, of course, preceded 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 nmen in Congress possessed of means, and capitalists in large cities. Those whom I persuaded
to do so I have no difficulty in naming, for they have continued to act
with me.  But it is not so easy to recall others I ftiled to persuade.
Senator Grimes, John B. Alley, and Samuel. Hooper, of the House, were
willing to go in, and subscribed Very largely in all these cases. I offered
to guarantee them against loss. I also distinctly remember applying to
W. F. Weld, as his prophecy of ruin made an impression. I have been
reminded, though I had forgotten it, that I had suggested it to Mr.
Scofield when the organization was merely projected. Oar capital soon
proved inadequate, and it was increasedl, and with difficulty.  It was
again inadequate, and again increased, and this time obtained only with
the aid of an enormous bonus.
During 18'65: 66, and until late in 1867, there were neither dividends nor
profits. During all this time I was constantly at work endeavoring to
enlist others. Confident of ultimate success, and of the profit that would
come, I held out every inducement`, and matte every representsation that
I believed to bejustifiable for this purpose.
Precisely who I spoke to or who fornmally agreed to tale 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.
Froml first to last I was influenced by the samie 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 Xew shares I could get, to disappoint 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 mamed in the
letters produced by Mr. McCoaib 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. 1 have stated' all I can say respecting his connecctioa
with the business.
Mr. Blaine. You have heard tMr. Blaine's testimony in advance of
mine and my acquiescence tlherein. He declined the stock, and nothing
more needs' be said.
Mr. Dawes. In December, 1867, he came to me to purchase a Cedar
1Rapids 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 at
any time he wished me to. After making inquiries, he gave me $1,00.
to invest in the stock. Some time after he came to me he asked what
iharned 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.
Iinvested it in twenty shares of Credit Mobilier, and the balance in
Iowa Falls and Sioux City Contracting Company stock. I settled up




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        21:this matter with him in 1870,  I think, and paid him the amount due,
and took the stock off his hands at his desire.
Mr. Garfield. I agreed to get ten shares of stock for him and hold
it until he could pay for it. He nev6r 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.   offered it to
him, but he declined. IE cannot, therefore, believe I ever mentioned his
name to Mr. l\cComb, for I never had any reason to suppose he would
buy it.
tMr. Kelley is another. I 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 woutld carry it for him till he was able to pay for it. He never took the
stock. iMy 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 regards 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 enterprise 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 Mobilier
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. Subsequentlyhe became dissatisfied with it, assigning that he had heard there was a personal responsibility 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. lMr. McComb,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 particulars of such sales, so far as I have now any recollection. I of course
include under the word sales every transaction by w hich any member
of Congress became entitled to a share.
As to what I said in my letter of January 25, I can add little to
what I have stated. The letter of McCombb, 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 Mir. 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
1large as possible. That these were intended as sales they were to pay




22                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
for this letter shows. It did not occur to me there was any impropriety 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 January 30, 1868, 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 dou bt, because I
would not let his friends have some of my stock. I had never been
able to discover anything that could mlkle me fear such investigation;
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 intention under
which it was written, except the cllusion to _Mr. WTashburn, and this I
will explaiin iconnection with my proposal in the letter of the 22d of
February, fbr they belong to the same subject:
It had become tolerably well known to all the world th at 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 offered without opposition.
There was first a complaint made by Mr. lWashburn 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 talke from us what we had, in my view, paid
the Government for. It was to get these land-grants as private property. 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 proposed to to trammel that right. Being a mere private right
I 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 letters to Mr. McComb we were in no sort of confidential relations, though
our interests were largely connected. Before that time 1 had ascertained facts connected with him that would prevent me placing any conlfidence in him.
Before any publication of these transactions a threat of exposure was
communicated to me. Aly informant will name the person. The price
of secrecy offered was the compromising with McComb. Though perfectly 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. McComub,
I was again offered to be relieved from  all the difficulty and a withdrawal 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 proposition, 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 letters and deny he had any such if I would settle his claim, or something
to that effect. 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
him to publish themL if he chose. i knew I had done or said nothing
that meant anything wrong to a fair mind. The remark he puts 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 continned as follows:
By the CHAIRMnAN:
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 callecl, was not guaranteed by the Credit
Miobilier. 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 New York, I believe. The head office, I think, is in Philadelphia. I was never a director in the company, and never had anything to do with the books.
Q. Who is the president of the company now?-A. Sidney Dillon, I
think.
Q. WTYhere does he live?-A. In New York.
Q. Has your company a secretary?-A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. Who is the present secretary of the company?-A. I think Mr.
Benjamin F. Ham.
Q. Does he live in New York?- A. Yes, he has his office in lew
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. No, 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. 0, 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 December 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, I 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
December 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




2 4                     CREDIT -OBILIER.
my impression that the ninety-three shares came after I had the two
hundred and fifty shares.
The CHAIRMAN. It does not seem so from the two lists?
WITNTESS. But I received them both I think.
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 Mir. 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 toyout and Durant, did it exhaust
al1 the stock of the company, except that which was held by other persons? -A. Yes, sir; that was all the comnpany 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. MlcComb 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 we-re unallotted.
Q. Out of the stock which the company had to dispose of? —. Yes,
sir.
Q. In your statement you have referred to various transactions between you and several members of Congress in regard to their beconming owners of stock in this Credit Mobilier Company V? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think that generally, and perhaps in all the cases, you have not
given any date for these transactions V-A. No, 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. W7hat do you mean by transactions?
CHAIRMAN. What you have stated.
A. I have been talked to by a great malny persons about getting an
interest in that stoclk,. and I had promised it to a great many. I presume 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 can not 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 $83750,000.
Q. That was ain increase of thie capital stock?-A. An increase of the
capital stock.
Q. You do not understand that it was a sto0k  dividend l?-A. No, sir.
Q. You understand that the increased stock wasto be disposed of to
somebody?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would a man. who has subscribed for any given nunmber 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 V-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. Then all the difference in that respect, between those who were
stockholders and those who were not, was that the stockholders were




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       25
entitled to take the additional stock if they chose?-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 tMr. 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. But 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, sr;  I do not think there was ever any of it
transferred.
Q. It continued'to stand in your name?-A. Yesg 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 seet the books of
the company.
Q. Do you know how early any dividend was made on the Credit
Mobilier stock? -A. I ldo not recollect any dividends being made on it
until about January, 1868. 1 think that was about the frst.
Q  Do you recollect the amiount 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 Ra;ilroad 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 Railroad Company, or in its bonds? —A. In both.
Q. The Union Pacific Rtailroad 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
lasses of bonds kept separate, and distinct — A. No, sir.
Q. The proceeds of the sales of both of thenm were used in the construction 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?-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 ~? —. 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 state;ments 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 paymerit 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                    ICREDIT 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 i-A. It never has been transferred 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?-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 consequence.
Q. And can you recollect, do you recollect, whether you paid dividends to Mr. Colfax?-A. No, sir; I do not recollect; it is my impression that I did.
Q. Have you any idea of the amount you paid him?-A. No, sir.
Q. Or when you paid it — A. 1No, 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 anly other stockholder?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. As to 31r. Wilson, of Aassachusetts, 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, in
December, 1867. I think that that money was received by her in the
fall, and Mr. 5Wilson applied to me to know what would be a good investment.
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. WTilson nor fMrs. XW'ilson 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.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       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. iL
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 believe 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 thirty 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 company.
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. Anud that that has continued down to the present time?-A. Yes,
sir.
Q. The contract has never been rescinded? —A. Not by me.
By MIr. 3MCRAnY:
Q. What _Mr. Patterson is that?-A. Senator Patterson, of:New Hampshire.
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 Mir. 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 December, when he gave you the $1,000, until the time when the contract
was rescinded — A. No, sir; I 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 3-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 Hmore than the par




2 8                    CREDIT MOBILIERe
of the stock?-A. I bought his stock from him and paid him the market
price for it.
Q. HEe received the stock at par, and when you took it back you paid
the market price. That was the basis of the settlement. —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. ily recollection is
that I settled with him, and paid him the Vole thing, and bought his.Credit Mobilier stock from him.
Q. What was the market value of that Credit Mlobilier stock'wvhe.
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 Ar. 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. No, 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 f-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 under'stand it so?-A. Yes; 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?-A. No, sir.
Q. And the same with reference to Mr. Elliott? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. In reference to this transaction with Mr. iKelley, 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 company — 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. INo, sir.
Q. All the money transaction between you and him was that you
loaned him $1,000?-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



CREDIT MOBILIER.                       29:'
fied with it, and returned it. Mr. Scofield 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 f-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 amounVt?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did he retain whatever dividend he did receive? —A. It is my impression that he did; I am not certain; I cannot recollect all these transactions.
Q. You say that that was quite early in the enterprise; can you state
what tinme it was?-A. No, sir; Mr. Scofield and I boarded together in
1866 and 1867, and had very frequent talks about this matter, 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 he 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. WVas there anything more than the $1,000 returned?-A. That I
cannot recollect.
Q. Can you recollect at wl at time this imatter was rescinded?-A. No,,
sir; several years ago. -
Q. In regard to Idr. Fo7ler, you say lihe never had any stock?-A. He
had not.
Q. He never paid anything nor received any stock?-A. No, sir.
Q. In regard to James F. WVilson, of Iowa, and MIr. Allison, of Iowa,.
you say they got ten shares each; they are the owners of those ten
shares now, for aught youn know?-A. No, sir; Mrr. Wilson sold his.
Q. The contract never was rescinded between him and youn? —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 altr.
Allison; I have not so distinct a recollection of that matter.
Q. He received the ten shares of stock? —A. 0, yes; he received ten
shares of stock and paid for it.
Q. What was the arrangement made with them by which they were
to becomle 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. 1MVr. Wilson
saidl 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 disposed 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 Congress, there was an investigation in regard to the alleged sale of cadetships, which has led to serious proceedings in 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,




:3a0                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 Congress, touching any members of the prior Congress, had been erased
from the record, and no report made of it to the House,
The CHIAIRMIAN. It is very clear that we cannot deal with Mr. Wilson
-and Mr. Allison in any way, but perhaps we may with.Mr. Ames.
MIr. HMCR.UPAY. If we go on with the inquiry in regard to those exmembers, of course they must have a hearing, if they desire it.
The CHAIRXAN, 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?-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
haldwriting.
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 l" —as it seems to have been changed
by pencil to " 2 Ohio; 2 Pa.; 1 Ind., 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 amountl of stock, but to the number
of persons in each State?-A. That is it.
Q. You say, "' I 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 out to four from Massachusetts.
Q. You say that y6uL "have assigned" as far as you have gone?-A.
What I meant by saying that I had assigned was, that that was my intention. 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 intention 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 $5,000 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 I had designed to do. It was in answer 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 MOBILIER.                       31
were the number unallotted of the original stock, before it was increased
50 per cent. I did not get but ninety-three 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, "1 Quigley has been here."A. That relates to another matter altogether.
Q. Mr. MlcComb was correct in saying that that has no reference to
the affairs of the Credit Alobilier?-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 fronm any book or paper — 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, c" Oakes Ames' list of names a sho'd to-dav to
me for C. AM., Blaine, of Maine, 3,000." Did you say anything to him
about M5ir. Blaine?-A. lNo, sir; I do not recollect; I may have mentioned 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 ohe of those
who were to receive $3,000, or thirty shares — A. That cannot be correct. 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 MiE. Blaine about his having
imore 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.7 3,000."o  Do you recollect whether you mentioned Senator Patterson's name to him?-A. I do not; I cannot recollect; I may have told him and I may have had a list of names of persons to whom I intended to sell stock; we did not mean to give away
any.
Q. You do not mean to have us understand that you ever gave anybody any shares of stock?-A. No, sir; never.
Q. Did any member of Congress ever receive any shares from you except by paying for them?-A. No, sir; never.
Q.' Patterson, of N. II. 3,000. How many shares did Mir. Patterson 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 as all that there was in
regard to that?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. "Painter, reporter for Inquirer, 3,000 f?"-A. Yes, sir; he had
thirty shares.
Q. He became a stockholder?f —. Yes, sir; he said he was promised
more, and was very indignant that he did not get fifty shares.
Q. "S. Colfax, Speaker, 2 7"-A. Yes, sir; that is according to my
testimony.




32                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. "Eliot, of Mass., 3?" —A. He did not have any.
Q. "Dawes, of Mass., 2' —A. Mr. Dawes had ten shares.
Q. Did you tell McComb 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. iNo, 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, 27 —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 McComb about Mir.
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 Congress 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. 1No, sir 7:
all my idea was, to have enough people interested to look into the matter. We did not want any legislation from Congress. We did not
know ilc 1867 that Jim Fisk and Judge Barnard were going to drive us
out of New York, and we did not know that we would havie 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 iMr. 3iERRICK:
Q. Had you promised to all these members of Congress mentioned
in this written statelment to procure for theim stock of the Credit Mobilier?-A. I cannot recollect. There were so many who talked to me
about getting an interest i 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 didl?-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? —A. I think that IMr. 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 I aim:
not certain.
Q. Can you state how long it was before the time that the stock was.
awarded to you that yor had these conversations with these gentlemen — A. Probably a few months before, or at the session of Congress.
before-the summer before.
Committee adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o0clock..




CREDIT'MOBILIER.                       33
WASHIINGCTON, D. C., Wednesday, December 18, 1872.
Committee met at 10 a. in.; all the members present.
Examination of Oakes Ames continued.
By Mr. 3MEiRICC:
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 business letters of importance. There may
be some of them among my own, letters at Easton.
Q. These seem to be business letters?-A. Relating to this matter,
yes. If I 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 to bribery or anything 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. McComb's
of the 28th, inclosing a copy of a letter from, or rather to, Mr. King, in
which you say, " I do not fear any investigation here."  State whether
you have that letter of Mr. King.-A. I cannot tell you.  It is among
my papers at Easton if I have it. I recollect very well the substance of
the letters replied to in both cases.
Q. What did they refer to — A. The first letter of Mr. MIcComb
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 investigation, called
for or threatened?-A. I cannot say. I presume not. I know it was
frequently alleged in our New 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(. 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 Government, and were charging
a great deal too much in the rates established.
Q. Have yrot kept any memoranmdum  or any entries of these various
transactions with the different menlbers of Congress, receiving stock
from the Credit Mobilier or Union Pacific Railroad Comnpany? —A. I do
not know whether I have allny memorandum or not. I suppose I probably did make a memorandum at the time.
Q. 4.rWhat haive you done with these memoranda? —A. I do not know
whether  I ave destroyed telmn if I  made themn. I have none here. My
al)(aers are all at Easton, as I told you before.
3 x




34                      CREDIT MOIILIER.
Q. Is it your habit, as a matter of business, in conducting various
transactions with different persons to do it without making any memoranda. —A. This was my habit. Until within a year or two I have had
no book-keeper, and I used to keep all my own matters in, my own way;
and very carelessly, I adlnit. I (lo 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
tranllsactions with members of Congress, contained in your written testimony, 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 MIobilier
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 meambers of Congress to return the money
they had given you, and did so? —A. I think you must be mistaken in
reIgard to last autumn. What I referred to was before that.
Q. You do not know what members of Congress they were, if there
were any, who made such a request of you last autumn?-A. I do not
reinember any who asked nme to return their money.
Q. You say you do not know of any requesting you to return their
money and cancel the sto.lk 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 or Representatives?-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 themn asked that last autumn. I think you.
are mistaken in the time.
Q. What members of Congress at any timre asked you to return the
money invested by them and rKeceive back the stock. —A.  Mr. Dawes and
i r. Bingham.
Q. Whell did Mr. Dawes ask that? -A. After that suit was brought
by Mr. McComb. I think it was in the autumn of 1868 or 1869. It
was as long ago as that.
Q. When did you cancel the transaction with Mr. Bingham — A. I
thinlk perhaps in 1870 or 1871.
Q. Did all these gentlemen pay yout money for the stock you had
assigned to theml, or proposed to assi;gn to them?-A. Not for what I
proposed to assign to them. They paid the money for the stock assigned
to them.
Q. Did any of them pay imore than the par value of the stock?-A.
AIr. Dawes paid the par value a lnd interest, and so did Mr. Binu t.ham.
Q. How much did Mr. Dawes paiy you? —A. He paid me a thousand
dollars and interest.
Q. How much did Mr. Bingham.?-A. Two thousarnd dollars and
interest..
Q. Waas it two thousand or twenty-five hunldred? -A. It was two
thousancd. MNr. BinT'llam gacve nme twen\vty-five hunltdred to invest for hi1m,
but five hundred related to amlother mnatter.
Q. Did 3o0u pay these gettlemen any dividends upon their stock -A.Yes, sir.
Q. What dividends did yout pay them? —A. I cannot recollect.
Q. Did you pay) tihem all the dividenls that Ihat bee (1toi-,'ared?-A..
I did not pay thleum  any dividends I thiunk, aiter this suit was comnmenced.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       35
Q. Did you pay them any dividends at any time?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. What dividends did you pay them?-A. I paid them what was received.
Q. Did you pay them all the dividends that had accrued up to the
time of bringing this suit — A. I think I did.
Q. This suit was docketed inl November, 1868; did you pay them all
the dividends that had been declared prior to November, 1868?-A. It
is my imprression 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?-A. That
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 per cent., Union Pacific lRailroad 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. I presume I did.
Q. Did you pay them  a dividend declared June 17, 1868, of 60 per
cent., cash currency, and the sanme 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 (lid not pay, and as to who actually received the dividendls?-A. I
think Mr. Bingham had his dividends in full; and I think Mr. Patterson 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 Green'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 samle  day a dividend of 75 per
cent. first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company? —A.
~I presume I did.
Q. Tle samlle queStion is asked you in reference to a dividend declared
September 3, 1868, of 100 per cent. Union Pacific Railrotad stock, and the
same day 75 per cent. first.-mortgage bonds Ution Paciic, ttailroadl Coinpanyi?-A. It is my impression that I did. I do not recollect. It depended on the conlditions on which they took the stock. Some gave up
their stock, and( somle did not pay, and, therefore, did not get their dividends, of course.
Q. And of all these diversified transactions you say you have no memoranduamn —A. I have none here; I may have at home.
Q. Will you examine and see if you have such umemorandum?-A. I
will.
Q. Did you receive these dividends upon the two hundred and fifty
shares and ninety-three sharesi spoken of, as d(eclared at these respective
timtes~?-A. It is my impression that I did. I have no reason to doubt
it.
Q. They were assigned to you, if I understand, upon your claim to
the comnpany that, you had mnade arran:etnelts with certain gentlemen
to transfer these shares to tiem — A. 1My statement is that people ap



36                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
plied to me for stock, and that I promised to get them. some if I could.
I 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 were distributed
to these gentlemen up 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 retained by them?-A. They were returned in some cases, and in some
they have never been settled up yet.
Q.' Be good enough to specify in what cases they were returned and
in what retained. —A. That, I cannot tell.
Q. Can you tell the names of any individuals who did return the dividends they had received? —A. I think Mr. Dawes did, and I think Mir.
Scofield did.
Q. What was your motive in endeavoring to induce members of Congress to become shareholders in the Credit Mobilier and Union Pacific
Railroad Company — A. My object was to have associated with us men
of influence and character who would investigate and see for themselves
in regard to the rights and privileges of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company.
Q. Investigate what?-A. Investigate the whole matter. There was
a prejudice against the Union Pacific Railroad. 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 represent or explain to these gentlemen, or- did they know
iicidentally, when they subscribed for this stock, the arrangements you
had made in reference to the Credit Mobilier and the relations in which
the Credit Mobilier stood to the Union Pacific Railroad  -A. I do not
know that I made any iull explanation.
Q. And the character of the business transacted by the Credit Mobilier?-A.  I suppose I told them the Credit aMobilier was a contractor to
build the Union Pacific Railroad. I suppose everybody knew that who
knew anything about it.
Q. You supposed the relations between the Credit Mobilier and the
lUn ion Pacific Railroad 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 hundred and sixty-seven miles of the Union Pacific Railroad, known to
those who were concerned as owners of the stock of the Credit 3Mobilier'-A. I presume so. They would be very apt to know it.
Q. Would 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. lNone 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 Rail road Company, to avert inquiry that might be raised
by the Government of thel United States into the manner of conducting
the affairs of thel Union Pacific Railroad?-A. No, sir; never. Such an
investigation 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 tlhe inter



CREDIT MOBILIER.                          37
est of the Government, which they did, to such aii extent as made the
road cost us a great deal more than there was any necessity for.
Q. Did these five directors of the Union Pacific Railroad know of the
contracts made with the Credit AMobilier in reference to building   the
road f-A. The contract was made with Oakes Ames.; the Credit M~obilier had no interest in it.
Q. I mean the transfer of that stock to trustees. —A. Yes, sir.
Q. State 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 contrary. I could not answer fully without comparing it with the writtenl
interrog-atories 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 bo
copies of the answers of yourself and others to interrogatories propounded to you on the part of the complainant in that chancery suit iii
Pennlsylvania? -A. I cannot say whether I have this printed copy or
not. Mty signature purports to be attached to it,
Q. If you cannot say now, I will ask you to take that paper and examrine it before to-morloxv.-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 ma1,n would coammit forgery in copying. There iliay be clerical errors.  It seems to be,subtantially correct, and   a tam willing to admit that it is sabs;tian-tially
correct..
IQ.   ask you if, at or about the time when these transfers of stock
were made by you to members of Congress, there was any th -reati- or
rnmor on the part of the Governmaent of the United States to ca'se an
irnves-tigatiln to be manttlde into the manner in xwhiUh the aft'airs of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company hlad been conduted?-A. No,5 sir; I
do not kXS now that there was. The mnatter of an investiygat-ion had been
frequently t alked over in New York and I alwas saitd I  was in favor of
it.
Q. Were there any nmovements in Confgress loolinif to an investigation
as to whether the charter of the Union Pacific Iaiilroad had been rB'-rfeited at that time f —A. Not -to my knowledge.
Q. Or any movements in Congress looking t;o the ascertainment by
the Attorney-Gene'ral of the United States, whether or noBt illegal dividends had been made, and to cause re-imbursement thereof F —A. I think
some time after this, I[ shlould say a year after this stock was assigned,
Garrett Davis nade sLuch charges in a speech in the Senate.
Q. At the time this stock was assigned to yoen, or during your negotiations with members of Congress, were there any movements made in
Congress, or any rumors or suspicions of movements to be made in Congress, looking to such results — A. No, sit, not to my k)nowledge.
Q. Do you know wheni the'first movemneat  was fmade in Congress
looking too 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. I think that grew out of the Garrett Davis speech to which I have
referred, if I aim not mistaken.




CR3 EDIT  MOBILIER.
QI.  ask you if you know when the first movement; was made in Congress looking to the passage of that bill?-A. I cannot tell you. I ama,
the worst man t>o remlember dates youL ever saw.  I recollect now there
was such a resolution introduced into the Senate, and if I am not mistaken inquiry was ma1de.
Q. The movenlment ripened into this law of April, 1869 1-A. Thatt is
probafbly the time.
Q. You say there was no movement nor rumior that such a thing
would be done during that wilnter and spring of 1868, nor was there
any apprehension'in y our mind or the mind of olthers connected with
the C)redit Mooilier at that time that sulch movement would be mande?
A. No, sir; not to rmTy own linowledge.  I always wanted an investigat-;io  as can be proved by many witnesses.  I wished to have an investi gation.  I knew i had doni e nothling wrong, not'hing that was dishon-.
orable, and I  wished afn investi,'gation.
Q. Have you any  knowledge as to whether Jamnes Brooksl of the
Honuse of Relresetntitivesa Ias been thee owner, directly or indirectly, of
any stock iL2 tlie Credit Mobilier?-A. No, sir; i never knew of it.
Q.  Or in thb  Union Pacifie Railroad?-A. I think he is an owner of
stock in the Union Pacific Railro ad  if lie -was  not he could not be a
dir'ector.
Q. Does noti the law expressly forbid GoverniiUtlt directors froim.
owning any of that stok  7 -A. He was at one time a Government director. Ile is now a stock director.
Q. You trainsferred seoie of this stoc  to aMr. NWilsoln, of Iovwa; was,
he not a GovernimeLt director of the Union PacifiSe Railroad at the time
you trallsferre(d tlhat stock to him?-A. No, sir.
Q. Was he'a Governament director a-fterwiard 1-A.o Afterward he was.
Q. Did he retain his stock in the Ciedit, Mobilier after he was a G-tvermtenet directtor?,-A. No, sir.  I testified thpat he sold his stock in the3
Credit 1Mobfilhe  and the Union Pacific Rzilmroad before he left Congress.
ily brother boio, ht it- of ]him.
Q. Can you fix - t   time? —-A. I cannot. It waTlas betfore he left Congress.
By 1i1r. TClB4C    Y:
Can you tell us when the Credit BIobilier was chart;ered by the
Pelnsylvisiia iegislatnire? —.A. No, sir; I cannot. I had nothing tio do
wvith the Credit, Mobilier until 185,  I thinls.
Q. It was pErior to   1865, thlen t?A. Miy impression is th;at, it was an.
old chiarter tlat George Irancis Train had control of.'Mr. Duranlt
bougoht it of hiin.  51r. Duranlit w s one of the first stoekholders of the
Union Pacific Railroad. fcThe object for which it wvas intended wias that
the ind i dtal sltockIholders shou1td not be liable for the debts inctrred,
other than as tlhey had paid Fii r to1eir stock.  They clid  ot wrant, to be
liable aS general pa''rtners,  Mlr. Alley has been a, director of thle Union
Pacific Railroad and a, director of the Crrcdigt IMobilier, and yoa    can get
all that intfornmation    fom hliii.
Q. When did this corporation, knlown as The Credit lXiobilier, become
interested in. the cootstruectioen of the Union Pacific }Railroad?-A. ]
think it had somnlething to do with some of the early contracts, whie h
are set forth in this paper presented here.  There h was t   tle   oxie contract, which if' am i not mistaken, was run by the Credit Mfobilier. It
was used in this way in some shalre for a year or two before I llad anything to do with it.  I think the first contract fo)r the Credi't kiobilier
was the Hoxie contract, and thle dates of' it, as given here, were August
8, 1864, Mg;lay 12, 1864, and October 1, 1864.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                             39
Q. Whenl did you commence y'our negotiations with public'men, and
influential men,  with at view  of interesiing' them  in this stoek? —A.
5~hen I first went in myself, sune ttine, I thinlk, in [L35. I urged oa
5iy friends to go in.  I urg'eetd Mr. Alley to go in, and guaranteedl hilm
agaillst loss.  I induced 5Mr. aamrnuel Hooper, a member  of the Hoaes%
and Senator Grimes, and a ogreat;  miiv othbere, out of Congress, to
become interested.  Every man of infilence aind canpital that I could
induce to go in I endeavored to inldlce.  We wantedlt       a grea~t deal of
money and a great deal of strength, anl! n w  t iit y object t3) 3assocLiate
in the corporation respectable alnd resptisible Mon'l' men of ch arGatI   r
and stmanding,  both ia public and in privat t life.
Q. Did you solicit all these  memb.Irs ot' C)oigress to take stock?A. No; I think most of them  soliciteud te,. Some of th]~en I solicited.
I solicited Mr. Scofield when I first went in.  He ail I[ bo3arded to.
gether. I didl not consiler that there wvs a any ianpropriety in owninuo:sto,'k in any corporation, particularly when e' did[ nort wnTt anyinih5g
of Cmongreoss.  We na.sked no legislation,and ex'Pe('te l   none and( there
haLd been nothing asked of or grantel  by the Governtment since  that
timle that takes anytlinig fromn the Governr-lent or benefits th!O  Unioan
Pacifie 1R ailroad. The only th ing I ever asked was t yle ren oval of the
office from New York to Boston in ordler to get rid of the injunction of.James Fisk and ofthers granted by Jldg'e Barnaa-rd's court, and the right
to transfer such causes to the United States court..  Thcat I d(id not coansider as requiring  bribery or thie use of corrupt appliances.  The,
gentlmnemen I am  accused of bribing have  alwTays bleen fr'iends of the
road and hanve alwaiys voted for it, except Mr. Scofield. I think he voted.
easgainst it.  But I do not think tlia1t o,,vin lpg a thousand dollars of the
stock would induce l~Mr. Scofield to violate his oath.
Q. WaYas this stock promlised t-o these letlnbers of Congress in the fall
of 18657 -A. No, sir; I think not. Trhe stock~ olf the company   was all
taken tip as we saupposed, but this anliout of stock which we divided.
vras in the haands of Mr. Durant, as I understan'd it.  I-He h<ad never pcicd
for it, and the comipany rzade hima transfer. it to the corporationu  which
left thaft almount of stock for sale.
Q. WAl-hatt I want to get at is this.  It seems fromn t;his agreement or
coinsent of the stockholders that you and itr. Durantlwere to make use
of certainS shares.  Shares had been prollised to various pax ties. I wlaut.
to ask nou if lthat promlise was,,made as early as 1805; aid, if not, when
it was inadle?-A. I think not.  I thintic not before the summer or fall o
1 867.
Q. Was not st-oc  pIronised to any imembers of Congress prior to the
summner or fall of 1867 by you, or to your knowledge?-A. Some mnembers of Con,'ress owned it beafore this.  and t  think some meambers of
6Conereas had sposen  to  u, abTout it,  I toll them I would try to get
solmle but we hlald none to girve theon ntil the stock held by?i'r. I)uarant
not hbeiiag paid for, was translerred to the company. I had, sold someof
nmy own stock -to pardties.
Q. When wa':s the act passed which subordinated the Government loan.
to thatlu of the Union Pacific Railroad Company? —A. In 1864.
Q. Did any meniber 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 lomg after that titme.
Q. When you received money fronm these gentlemen'for stock was it
assigned to them, or did it still remain in your nanimeA. It still re-umained in my name; most of it.




40                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. WThy was it not assigned?-A. I don't know of any reason, except;
that when a man buys stock anld keeps it there is no use of transferring
it; when the suit of Mr. M3icComb 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?-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, 1868. I am not positive, but.
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 enc what purports to be a
list of dividends. and I wishl 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 Coompany.
July 1, 1867, 100 per cent. on Union Pacific Railroad stock.
July 4, 1868, 80 per cent,. on first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Pail.
road Company.
Same day, 100 per cent. on Union Pacifie Railroad Company's stock.
June 17, 1868, 60 per cent. on cash1 currency.
Samle day, 40 per cent. on UnionL Pacific Railroad Compauny's stock.
July 3, 1868, 75 per cent. on Union Pacific RIailroad stock.
Sanme day, 75 per cent. on first-mortgage bonds Union Pacific Railroad CompLany.
September 3, 1868, 100 per cent. on Union Pacific Rtailroad Company's
stock.
Sanme day, 75 per cent. onl frst-mortga-ge bonds Union Pacific Rail.roa d Comnpan y.
Decemnber 1-9 1S68. 200 per cent. on'Union Pacific RBailroad Company's
stock.
A. I thin1c that is correct, except as to the first three namred, -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   l;r. Merrick's question as to how many imembers of Congress received these dividendsupon that stocl, and what members did( not receive it, among those yout
have meationed. —A. I think that all who )aid f;or their stock received their dividends up to the thime this suit was commenced; that is
my impression.
Q. VWho received the dividends?-A. kMr. Patterson, Mr.. in gBigClham.
Jami1es F. Wilson did, alnd I think Mr. Colfax received a part of them.
I do not lknow whether he'received them all or not. I think Mr. Scofield received a part of them. MIessrs. KelIley arnd Garfield never paid
for their stock, and never received their dividends.
Q. Have you mentioned all the nmemibers of Congress who took stock
in the Credit Mobilier?-A. I have mentioned all that haves been namet
here.
Q. Have you mentioned all who are mnembers of the present Congress
who took stock - A. I think I have.
Q. Are you certain on that point f-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 comamenced to testify?-A. Yes




CREDIT MOBILIER.                         41
sir; that was my understanding of the instructions given Ine. I suppose Mr. Wilson's and Mr. Allison's names would not have been mentioned if Mr. MBcComb had not mentioned them.
Q. Had not a congressional investigation into the affairs of the Union
Pacific Railroad 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 iup there in New
York. I do not know that I ever heard anything of it here.
Q. W~as there or not an investigationl by Congress referred to in your
letter to Mr. MIcComb of January 30, 18687 in which you say,' I do not
fear any investigation here?" —A. Yes, probably; I had nothing to fear
from an investigation.
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 WashbuLrns nmove, you go in for making the bond dividend in full. tWhat
did you refer to by I' Washburn's move"  here f?-A. Washburn made an
attack upon the Union Pacific Railroad, that ue 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, anLd thenl abandon the road to the Government.
Q. Had -Washburn said anlything about an inlvestigation?-A. I do
not recollect that lie had. Hle wanted to fix a rate of fare by law, beyond
which wme could not charge. He wanted us to be restricted to a certain.
at-mount. That was one of the things he claimed. I do not remember
fully all lie (lid claim.
Q. In your letter to MIr.  ciColnb of January 25, 1868, you say you.
think that the dividends having' been paid you ought to make the Credit
Mobilher capital four millions, and distribute the new stock where it wiiill
protect you, & c. WVhat do you mean by having stock placed where it,
will protect you? —f-i. Placed with mein of charaeter, property, and standing. I wa1nted that such men should own iit and have itllerest with us.
Q. Did youil have any reference to that protection which you nlight
get from  fiLvorable legislatlion in Congress?-A.  o0, sir; xe'did not
wish many legislation from Congress; we did not expect any.  Congress
in -18W6 Iad given us all we asked. That waas before I had anytahine  to
do wit;h the road.  Wet did not e-pect a'nythingr further.
Q. Yon speak in the same letter in regard to the 50 per cent. increase on the old stock that vyou wvanted for distribution here. How
dlid youl propose to distribute that here in Washington — A. To carry
out nmy en-tgagements for stockl. That was in Januialry. The 825,000 of
old stock I had got was entitled to the increased stock when the' increase of capital was mlade. It was applied to that stock, and there is
where I got the ninety-tlhree shares reterred to. It was the increased
stock on the two hundred and fifty shares assigned nce.
Q. The stock list shows that you had the ninety-three shares before
you had the two hundred and  ftly? —A. I cannot help that. That is my
recollection. I had both, at any rate.
Q. So you thlink 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 ninetythree.
Q. You speak of Alley and Cisco being on the finance committcee
What finance committee do you refer to? —A. To the Union Pacific-.Railroad.




42                        CRE DIT MOBILIERt.
Q. )PYou did not refer to any commrittee of Congress?-LA. N'o, sir.
3lIr. Cisco was not a member of Congress.  I supposel that they could
-raise money as nlembers of the finance  comnmittee of the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, if we came short.
By 3r. BoANKCS:
Q.  That effect was prod~ucedl on your mind, or that of the comlpany,
by the reports -riade by one of the Governl:elnt directors in 1866 or 1867,
relpresenting that the road had been improperly built;  that the structure was inot suffiieent to sustalin the traffic?-A. The effect produced on
my minld xas simnply that we lad to mnake it perfect.
Q. Had it  yLthJi'lng to do with tlhis transaction -?-A. N-o, sir; nothing whatever. Under a misapprelhensoil in consequence of the report
yon allude to, the Governmentt at o1ne time, withheld their bonds on the
2round'lthat the road was not built in the proper manner.  I came-a  to'Washingt-onl a-Wt that time with my brother and gave bondls for I do not
know how much, one or two million, that the road slhould be properly
SBy thie C-HAIRDAN'
Q. I understood you to say t1hat M[r. Brooks you never uniderstood
wa~ a stocrlholder of tie Credit fMobioier -A. Not'to mny knowledge.
Q. Do you know  his son-in-lawr Chl-rtles Neilson, ia New York?-A.
I (do not   know hi.  I know there is suchl a min.  I h-ve h eard of himn
as being a so11-in-law  of lAir. Brooks, and a stockholder.  I think part
of tlhe stock aJ1r. Durant distributed wext to t   r. NlMeilson, as he had.
promnised it.'hat, however, is only a matter of helarsay.  I had noth.ing to  o Twith it.
Q. You have no knowledge nor inomato inrton   tha        t  at stock was hel"
f~or the benefit of MTr. Brooks in any way?,-A  No, sir.
Q.  ou hlave no info-rmation that leaxsi you to believe that that or
ian1, otheri st oc{k was held for the benefit of Mr. Brooks by anybody?-.A. I have, ni   knowledge on that subject eit her way.  I know nothirngC
about that,
By Air. NrIBLACOK~
Q. in this arrangenment with nmmiTPers of Congress by which -you sold
The'iro....e's of stock, did you regard it as a private transaction between
youn aSned themn, or were you acting' on behalf of t.he Credit. Mobilier of
Ai nerican -A. I regarded it as a privaCte transaction between myself
anil  them.  T~he stock was given to nme to distribute as I pleased, to,cairry out my arrangements.
Q. Given to you without consideration -.  A. No, sir;    paid par and
inlterest; I gave my checks for the amount.
Q. Then the money paid for it by imembtlers went intio your own
pursre — A.   Y ts, sir; it was my private monoey:
Q. And when the 10money wast refundled to them  it wvas refunded by
O}1u'mutd not by tile Credit Mobilier? AV. Certainly. I had nothing to
do w ith the Cretdit IMobilier.  I paid -for the stotk par and interest.
Q. You received the stock as trustee; for wholm. were you acting as
trusteje -.A. I was not acting as trustee fior anybody.  I put it in that
way to distinguish it from the stock I held for myself. I dlo not know
-Twhy I  stated it as trustee.  In the examination last fall before the commissrionrer in Bostoln, I stated that, I held it in trust.  Mr. Bartlett asked
aoe w homn I was trustee for, and I replied that I was not trustee for anybody.  I simply took it as trustee to distinriuish the stock from  that
wlhich I held before for myself.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                           43
Q. Didn't I -underst:and 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 namne.-A. It still remained in ly narlme, 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 dividlends which youn paid over to members
of Congress, who ha d received their assig-i-nments of stock, did you receive the dividend in your own nmime?-A. Yes, sir; I received it atid
receipted for it on the books of the company, in my own name,% I acttig
as the agent of these par ties.
Q. Yo  received t'he almount of the dividends in gross and distributled
aurmong  onur fri'ends as you understood your arrangeiments with themi
making it, a private trans-action between yourself and thenm?-A. Y.-s$,sir; a private transaction.
By Mr. MEnRmIcr:
Q. I have seen it stated thal  J. C. Kenne,-dy acted as a co-trustee fbr
these two hundred and fifty shares.-A. Yes, sir; that was one of MeCoimb's statements.
Q. Will you state whetehe dr he d-id act as co-t rustee?-A. r.   M cl, Coms-'b
stated that he had seen on the boo)ks of the Credit  Molbilier stock ti. amsferred to a manm by th1e name of Kenniedy, as trustee. I do not kntow a
m an by the niame  of' Kennedy in Washingtoni   1   never saw him and
never hteard of him till now.
Q. You never had any transaction with  im i-i' connection  with the
Credit fl Mobilier f-A. TNo, sir; I dlo not kn ow the- mailn.
Q.  ourt had no dealings with him at all in reference to the Union  Pacific R~ailrioad or the Cre'dit Mobilier stock, either in respect to sto:k,
divide(nds, or otherwise?-A. Never. I will tell  you -what'Mr7r. tMc(nlb
imakes that oat of. Geo.  W. Keinedy was a book keeper of ours in
M!Iassachlusettis.  I bought some stock i in h1is n)ane as trustee.   I (do 1oti
tJhink Mr. McComb ever saw hlin.  Hbe is inot a large 1man, or a goodloo1king man, or a man with graiy hamir.
Q. WVthat was your o[bject in puttinlg the stock in his name as traustee?A. I cannot tell you. I had it all transeirred to nyself a long while
ago.
Q. You head no object at all in putting it in his name as trustee,?A. No, sir.
Q. You did it as a mntter of pure cmarice? —-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did 1fe hlave anyu knowledge of its bei'ii in his nafme a:s trustee --
A. Yes, sir; because he trainsierred it to met bat'k agtain and he had to
sign his name in the samme w, ty.
Q. Did yvon nalme to himn aiiy purpo e for whichl you transferred it to
hiLlm as trustee?-A. Not that.   T k11w. k    transferred it to himn as
trustee without iis knowledged.
Q. And (you did it without anlly notive wh' ea tever?*-A. I do nno t klow
thatt I ied an1y motive. A  part of this stock stood in the nami'e oM f those
p;arties who did not take their stock, and a portion of the sto~ck I transierred to himi was that stock.
Q. A portion of this;unclaimed stock which  you demanded'to meet
your engagemrents — iA. Yes, Sir;  and it was transferred back to me a
year ago or more.. By the CIIAIRiiAN:
Q. It seems by this list that the dividends on the Credit Miobilier stock
began to be muade as early as April, 1866, and there was another in




44                       CREDIT MOBILIER.
April, 1866 and 1867, and July, 1867. These two hundred and fifty
shares of stock were transferred to you in December, 1867, as I undelrstand you. —A. I cannot recollect. I thlink the stock was assigned to
me in December, 1867.
Q. There had beein three dividends made up to that time. Did 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 yea
were entitled to any prior dividends?-A. No, 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 upon
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, a.s 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?-lA.
Certainly.
The chairman stated that the question had been raised as to whether
the counsel of MV-r. MeColnb should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses in. this investigation.  The committee think that while M1r.
ceCoinb of course is not the prosecutor in this proceeding, yet the proceedincg is founded  upon tranlsactions sworn to by Mr. MIe(nomb and
which in some way became public, and the inquiry being based upon
that, the coimmittee are to ascertain whether his statement is true or not.
They think, therefore, they should hakPove somne, ileans of determining the
accuracy of testimony which rntay be given agtfinst him, and are of:
opinion that he should be per(nitted through his counsel or otherwise,
to cross-examine the -witness.
1ar. BANKS. My reason for assenting' to the decision of the committee,
-which the chairman has stated, wais that so flrn as the parties are knowln
to us Mr. McCoinbi ma.y be suppolsed to have inffornlation of the facts iif
there hais been anything wrono.in this transaction. If we exclude lis
testimony, or his inquiries, when rebuttirng testimony, it may be supposed that we have suppressed iLformlmtioan within  our reach. Therefore, not so muchl- recognizinf g his rit,,t assa prosecutor ia any way, bui
to get t, he faul statementl of the tratth in this ease, I assenlt t his being
permitted to propound illquiries to witnesses, either by himself or his
counllsel..Mr. aMURnmIC. It appears to mie probable that 3MTr. Me1cComb and his
counsel may have sour:es of inlforlnmtiorh, ain  thh't the  nay be able, by
a cross-examinlation of M3,r. Asnes and othelr witnesses, to develop facts
connected with this inquiry which have not been adverted to by members of the committee in their exa'mination.  In order that all sources
of truth may be searched I think it expedient that Mr. McComb, by his
counsel, shall have tile privilege of cross-exarnining Mr. Oakes Ames,
anld of suggesting to the commnittee other fa(:ts to be inquired into which
have not already been made the subject of inquiry.
Mr. ALLEY. With the permnission of the committeeo I wish to say, you
mnay remember, the other daly, at the conclusion or Mr. MlcComb's testiimony you invited ine to cro.ss-examinae lhim. I did not do so -for two reasons: 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 exanine a
witness.  I did not know that course was to be pursued.  I thought in



CREDIT MOBILIER.                      45
asmuch as the committee had been raised it was eminently proper. and
right that you should allow the fullest inquiry, and the most thorough
and 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 surprise, and so
astounded, having come here merely as a witness, to be called upon
in regard to so infamous a charge-infanmous on my part if true, equally
so on his part if not true —I was so astounded, I will not say disconcerted, 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 IMr. McComb a question or
two.
Mr. BLACK. It does interfere with the regular course of business of
course. There are a great many objections I could urge to that course.
I desire to put a very few questions to Mr. Ames, lut before doing so I
wish to define as carefully as I can what the position is that Mr. McComb occupies to this proceeding. He appears here solely as a compulsory. witness, and in no other capacity. I 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. I do
not propose to ask Mr. Ames any question concerning the subject-matter 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 you can go on in
that time if you desire.
Mr. BLACK. I do not want three minutes.
Examination by Mr. BLACK:
Q. Did Mr. McConmb 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, corporation? —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 bond, which took precedence 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 company sold
all 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 l-A. Not that I know of.
Q. And a part from bonds which were a lien upon the lainds of the
company? —A. I believe they were issued after the company got in debt,




46                         CI.EDIT 3M~OBILIER.
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 cotmpany 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 isstued?-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 understandino'
Q. You 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.
WIr'NESS. XWell, you were counsel part of the time, and I suppose it
was all right, that part of it.
Q. I)idl it strike you that it was entirely proper for a member of Congress to be concerned in-that arrangement ~?-A. It did, sir.
Q. You 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 memler of Congress?-A. Certainly.  There is no law an(l no reason, legal
or moral, why a memnber of Congress should not own stock in a road
any more than wlhy he slhould not own a sheep when the price of wool
is to be affected by the tarif.
Q. That is your conviction now? —A. Yes, sir; and always has been.
Q. Were you not a pprehelnsive that any onIe might take a (liferent
view on  that subject'?-A. No, sir; I was not.  I did not know  thaat
anybody had a different view until the other day you told tmle that you
thought it was wrong for a irember of Congress to own a share of bau nk
stock or any other security whic.h could be affected by the legislaLtion of
Congress.  You stated that we in New England were not as 1pure as
you were in ellTnsylvania; that you did not own a sh tre orf ballk stoek,
and that you thouglht no member of C(ongress ougllti to   Well, I am not
so pure as that.  I think a member oh Cortgress has a right to own
property in anything he chooses to invest iil.
Q. Did it strike -you there might ie so)ne incompatibility between
yotr duty as a mernber of Conmgress, to gamrctl thl lpuallie In.)laey wici(h
was held by a corpyc (ation in traut t fn pitblic use, atndll  youri interest als a
memnber of a ring, orga nizel of pwersorlns i)ol tho he) pIrie)se o( aflp',ti)prii0timlg
it to their own privateo use? —. I t) not kilvw atllill tg aboat lilny
ritng.  I never went into ay rillg.
Q. We will not call it a rimg' —mll assoeiationl.  Didl you see anitlhing
incompatible between your Is}{;itliotill~  al and at asstitiolti sulh a's thatt in
whlich,you wee joinled? —A. N, sir; iI Ilever'lii atid (l, til()t Ioi\w.
Q. 1re you n aot aware that, the lr,)-)ier.y Or tat oinirse, has beeni veryseriously questionted? —A. No,   aIn not.  (eterall tiletr  otice, sictle 
have beeit in Congress. questionle(d tlhe rigiit oft' any  nember!Ioltlilig
banltk stock to vote on a qu stinol, ill whlicl: nallioial baliks vwereb cotcernied, and I snpl)ose ont the samne lrii.ifll he aty m1ian owning a Governnielit bond \wourald have Ilo mIjlit ti) sit iii Cmg1)1iess.
Q. Arcyou not aware lhat ill 1i(9 t lhere wa;s a (tisuission ol this subject inll tie Senate, a1dl thalt o)illiotis were ex!iCresed ilmconsistelt with,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        47
those you 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, 1869, 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 Senate in 1869, and I do not know but Mr. Stewart may have said them.
Q. Were you not present when that discussion occurred? — A. I do
not know. I heard debates probably about that 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? —. I cannot tell you.
Q. And you (1o not recollect that you were present at the debate referred 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?-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 Railroad, and wanted to get the
junction as far east as he could. That was 1nothing we asked from Congress, and it did not cost the Government anything except the time
spent in debate. There waIs no subsidy of any kind connected with it.
Q. How much stock do you own in the Pacific iRailroad now ~l-A. I
callnot tell you; I (do not remember.
Q. Can yo,, not approximate it in co3njecture — A. I should think I
owned 1,000 shares.
Q. How much did you pay for that stock — A. Various prices.
Qo. Did you get it directly fiom the company?-A. A part of it; but
wha-:t hlas that to do with this investigation @
The CHAiRMAN. I should say that is one side of any inquiry we are
in l)ursuit of.
Qo. I want to ask you whether the Credit Mobilier was not discarded
as ml achinery for transferring these profits to the partners who were associated together originally under thlat name?-A. I think it was.
Q. But, tle contract continued to be held by the seven trustees?-A.
The Credit TMobilier was discarded, of course, as I testified yesterday.
Q. The object of the organization under the seven trustees was the
saut:e as the Credit Mobilier had been used for?-A. It was for the
belefit of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, in
orider that every man might have what he was honestly, fatirly, and
justly entitled to.
Q. Then the )artners who held that stock itf the Credit Mobilier were
entitled to exactly the same divide:nds out of the profits they would have
received it the Cred(it Mobilier should continue to perform the functions
which it was originally intended to pertfolln?-A. You have seen the
recordls, I sl)I)Se, and you can ascertain froml that better thanl I can
tell I5'yo. It' yout have not, you can htave theml; they are open to the
ilnslpection of eveivybody.
Q. I will ask,ou. another question.  Did that change in any way
affitet  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 MOBILIER.
lawyer enough to answer that question. I do not pretend to have ally
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 CHAInRMAN:
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 divided 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 with
the other case.
By Mr. BLACK:I
Q. If you will receive my assurance of that fact, I have no such design. These contracts were made by you previous to the time when you
got your stock?
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. No contract. I
did not know I could get it. I had told persons 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 give it to them.
Mr. BLACK, Understand me, if you please. When you gave it to
them for a consideration had they a title to it which would give them
the right to receive dividends before tlihe stock was actually transferred
to them?
A. I do not know how to nnderstand your question. You want to
know if I was under 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 themI 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 I could.
Q. The men you have mentioned as having received this stock, some
of them have it yet, and some of them  lhave given you the back diviP
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. I do not kno'w that that has
anything to do with this transaction.
Q. You 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 you have no right to ask me.
This inquiry, I understand, is simply to affect the suit in Pennsylvania.




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                              49
iM[r. BLACK. I admit that, and I want to tell the coimmittee that I
have no other object in imakling any other inquiries, except in relation
to that suit in Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 nay, perhaps, have a little of it.
-The following interrogatories and answers, having been admnitted by
the witness to be authentie,  were placed in evidence:
J. T., 1868.-Supreme Court.-No. 19.
HENRY S. MCCOMB
vs.
THE CREDIT MOBILII,3R OF AmERICA, SIDnNEY
Dillon, John B. Alley, Roland G. Hazard,
Charles M. Ghriskey, Oliver W. Barnes, t
Thomas Rowland, Paul Pohl, jr., Oakes r
Ames, Charles H. Neilson, Thomas C. Durant, John M. S. Williams, Benedict D. Stewart, John Duff, Charles M. Hall, and H. G.
P'ant..
Inteirrogatories   to dlefjBdants.
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 Aubscription 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 6r was not a list of the stockholders of said company made out by the company or its proper officer, on or soon after the 3d day of March, 1866? 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 mentioned in the plaintiffI'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 numnber of shares
held by each, and state whether the name of Oakes Ames does oi' 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 February, 1868, were or were not made out on or about those clays 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 o-r 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 have held the stock of the last-named company on the
3d of Tarch, 1866, on the 12th of December, 1867, and on the 20th of February, 1868.
7. Did the TUnion Pacific Railroad Company make a written contract on the 8th
of August, 1864, for grading, building, constructing, and equipping one hundred miles
of the Union Pacific railway and telegraph, beginning at Omaha, with one Herbert M.
4x




50                           CREDIT  MOBILIER.
Hoxie, at $50,000 per mile, including all-work and materials? WVas said contract signed
by Hoxie himself or by his attorney in fact?  Who was Hoxie? Where did he live
and what was his business, occupa.tion, and employment at the date of said contract?
WVas he a man of property or capital, or at all able to meet the responsibilities of such
a contract? Produce the contract with Hoxie referred to in this interrogatory and
append a copy 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 would transfer the said contract of 8th of August,
1864, to Thomas C. Durant or such person as Durant would direct?'Was or was not
tlle said T. C. Durant at that time vice-president of the Union Pacific Railroad Conpany? Produce the written contract last referred to between Hoxie and Durant, and
append a copy to your answer.
9. Did or did not I-oxie, after the agreement with Durant, to wit, on the 4th'of
October, 1864, propose to the UInion Pacific Railroad Comupany to extend the contract
to the one hundredth meridian west longitude, at the same rate of pay, namely, $.50,000
per mile? Was not this proposal accepted the samne day it w as made? Is not the one
hundredth meridian 2571. miles (by the route of the railroad) west of Omaha? Produce the proposal herein referred to and a copy of the resolutions accepting it and
append them to your answer.
10. Did Hoxie ever do or attermpt to do any part of the work required by the contract, or fulrnish any of the materials or' expend any money or time thereon? If yes,
what and how much? Were not,i11 the maiterials ftrnished and paid for by the Union
Pacific RIailroad 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 Qr material, furnished by him under his contract? If yes, how much and for what?
11. How much nwas the actual cost of the whole road and telegrapli from Omaha to
the three hundredth mile-post? Did not the proper officer make a report, or in some
other form communicate to the Union Pacific Railroad Comrpany and to- the Credit
Mobilier, t, hat the cost of tllhe first) three hundred miles was $7,80i0,000, or $26,000 per
mile on the average? Did not this include all expenses for surveying the route, furnishing iron and other materitAs, grading, latying, and building the road, putting up
the telegraph, and equipping the road with sufficient rolling-stock? St.ate separately
how much was the cost of surveyiung  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 character of the work? Make a fair estimate of the cost, at economical prices, and say
what would be a just compensation per nile for the construction of such a road.
12. Did not the vice-president'of the Union Pacific Railroad Company make a contract with one L. B. Booiner, of Chicago, for the construction of 150 nmiles of the company's railroad and telegraph line west of the one hundredth meridian? Produce the
contract referred to and append a copy thereof to your answer. Was this contract
made in good faith and with the intention tha-t 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 roo 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? Was it in fact executed
or carried into effect 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 interrogations really and truly made for the benefit, use, and behoof of the Credit Mobilier
of America? Were not one or more of themn 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
constructing said raihoad?
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 contrauts merged in
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
contracts and append a 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




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                               51
assignment coupled with the express condition that the profits of said contract should
be divided among the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier in proportion to the number
of shares which they respectively held in that comlpany? Produce the said assignment
and append a copy thereof to your answer.
17. Was not the same contract upon the same terms extencled so as to cover all-the
road which was to be built between the one hundredth meridiall and the terminus authorized by the company's charter? Produce a copy of the contract making this extension, together with copies of all resolutions and other records of the acts done by
both comnpanies in relation thereto, and append theml to your answer.
18. By whom and at whose expense, upon whose credit and responsibility, and with
whose capital was thle road built and stocked which Oakes Ames agreed to build and
stock? What were the profits thereupon? How imuch did the contract price exceed
the actual cost of the construction and equipment?. To whom was the suiplus paid?
19. Is not the following a true anLd accull'rate stateent of the dividends or allotments
mliade by the Credit Mobilier, or the trustees under the Ames contract, to and among
the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier ati the several times.therein mentioned?  If
the statemlent be inacculrate in dates ancd amlounts, state wherein and to what extent
such inaccuracy is found, and furnish a correct statement accordinlo to your knowledge
and the books of the comn pany:
April 26, 1866, 100 per cent. in Union Pacific Railroad Companyll' stock.
April 1 1867, 50 per cent. 1st, mortgaige bonds of nioun Pacific Railroad Company.
July 1, 18 7, 00 liar cent. Union Pacitic Railroad Companc s stock.
January 4, 1868,80 per cent. 1st mnortgaog e bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Same day, 100 per cent. Union Pacific Ieailroad  Comlpany's stock.
June 17, 1868, 60 per cent. cash currency.
Same day, 40 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stock.
July 3, 1868, 75 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Company's stocak.
Same day, 75 per cent. 1st mortgage bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company.
September 3, 1868, 100 per cent. Union Pacific Railroad Compdny's stock.
Same day, 75 per cent. Ist mortgage bonds of Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Deceirber 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 dirinished, or expended in part or in whole?
22. If the money, bonds, and stock referred to inthe 19th 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? State also how it came to pass that the distribution 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 assuine 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? WVere they, in fact, paid for by the
Credit Moblhier or its stockholders? If yes, how much was paid for them? If no,
what was the consideration for which they were given to the said last-mentioned company 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 affirmative, 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 stockholders 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 changedc?
25. State who were -the holders of the " certain actual and valid shares of the stock
of said company," (to wit, the Credit AMobilier of America,) which are referred to in the
16th paragraph of the defendants' answer, and of which two hundred and fifty are




52                           CREDIT  MOBILIER
said in the same paragraph to have been" "duly issued" by said company, anld "held
by lawful owners thereof," before the 3d day of TMarch, 1866. Are the names of said
holders on the list of stockholders made out 12th December, 1867, or on any other authentic list of'the stockholders of said company, or are the said names to be found anywhere in the books or records of said company? If yes, on what list, book, or other
record? If the said shares were valid and actual, duly issued by the company, and
held by lawful owners for several years before Oakes Ames becamre trustee thereof, what
was the object and purpose of the company or its officers in falsifying its records and
lists?
26. Besides H. G. Fant, is there anyr stockholder named on any list or book of the
companly, whose name has disappeared from the more recent lists, and fiom the books
as lately made up, except in consequence of regular transfers"? Did any lawfull holder
of valid and actual shares dully 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 (thllree hundred and forty-three of theml in number)
which are now or have been held by Oakes Ames, trustee, given, granted, 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, froml any previous holder, real or pretended? 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 timne 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 plaintiff or H. G.
Fant? Did Oakes Aines himself pay for them at the time or before the time when they
were registered to him? If yes, how. munch?
29. Were not the shares aforesaid given, granted and registered to Oakes Ames without 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 company? Did he or did he not afterward
place them in the hands of several persons to the number of twenty-five 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 placi-ng of the shares as well as afterward? What were the amounts
of the back dividends on the 8th and 20th of Janutary, 1868?
30. Mention the persons with whom these shares were thus placed, or to whom they
were given, or for whomn they are or have been held by Ames as trustee. State particularly the 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 per cent.; or whether Oakes Amles ever received
-from his cestzui que trutst anything beyond that amount in payment for said shares.
Was or was not this sum of one hundredl dollars for each share paid out of the back
dividends? Did not the back dividends at the time of the placitg, as aforesaid,
amount to much more than one hundred dollars per share? If yes, how lmuch more?
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 or more officers and stockholders of the company, describing how he had lplaced
a portion of the stock which he held in trust, to what States of the Union he had distributed it, and how much he still held for distribution to others? And did not the
said Oakes Ames afterward at the company's office 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 exbibited
by Oakes Ames; produce all papers, records, or written documents showing the nature
and character of these transactions, and append copies to your answer.
32. Did Charles H. Neilson receive thirty-two shares or more of the stock of thle
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 fathe:r-in-law
then or since a Govermlent director of the Union Pacific Railroad Company?
33. When it was proposed among the directors of the company to give, grant, and
register the seaid two hundred and fifty shares to Oakes Ames as a trustee for such person as he -might hirnself designate, did not the plaintiff protest 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 plantiff 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 28th 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,
P'ro Plff.
McCo~rn
Vs.                    S. C. January term, 1868. No. 19. Equity.
THE CREDIT IMOBILIER OF AMiERICA.
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, and as to the acts
and doings of all other persons, to the best and utmost of our knowledge or information 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 nmade at any other date.
" MARCH 3, 1866
Cash....................................................  000
Dr. To capital stock........................................             $25, 000
"For 250 shares, subscription of H. S. MS. cComb, for account H. F. Fant, Virginia, and
draft made on him this day for the amount.
"JUNE 29, 1866
Cash.....................                                 25,000
Dr. To cash$2.......5, 000
"For draft of HI. S. McComb, for account subscription.of H. G. Fant, March, 3, 1866,
for 250 shares stock i'eturned dishonored, and subscription canceled."
To the second. We never saw or heard of such a list, and 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 on it as a stockholder, as he
certainly never was such. Nor was he ever entitled to become sjuch, 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 could 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 refising to pay the price to the company, and the company
assented to this and canceled the contract.
To tie 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 nirety-three shares as trustee on the 1st day of
April,- 1868, and it was added to a list of the stockholders of the 12tll day of December,
To thefonirth. A list is a.nnexed.  Oakes Ames does there appear as holding in trust
ninety-three shares and two hundred and fifty shares.
To thefifth. We have no knowledge or information of any list made out the 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 hereinafter more particularly set forth.




54                          CREDIT  MOBILIER.The books do exhibit a true state of the stock at those times subscribed for and
taken, excepting certain shares set forth and explained in answer to subsequent interrogatories; said lists were neither false nor deceptive, nor intended to be so, so far as
we can learn or have anlly reason to believe.
To the sixth. The same persons were for the most part stockholders in the Union
Pacific Railroad and in 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 of the
most leading and active managers 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 interrogatory.
To the sevlenth. We 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 contai-ned 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 inthe bill which shows that this is pertinent, or entitles the plaintiff to ask this discovery.
To the twelfth. We know nothing about the Boomer contract, except that such a contract was understood to be made by the vice-president of the railroad company without the knowledge of the company, and they never assented to it. As to the intent,
purpose, or object of, we know nothing, and have no means of ascertaining. It was
never carried out by said Boomer, in whole 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 interest 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 thefourteenlth. We have already stated, as far as we.know or believe, the facts in
relation to all of the supposed 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 description 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 fifteehth. 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, Mwest of the hundredth meridian. It was not antedated, but was dated and delivered 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 officers 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 associatetl with him in the undertaking, were the contractorshe the formal party, they, associated with him, though without any written arrangement, but relying on his undertaking to act for them, which he fully carried out'to the
end of the business.
A copy is alnnexed 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 October, 1867, for this reason: when the Ames contract was being negotiated, it was desired
by many of those who were associated -with him, 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 Mobilier, 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 contractors beyond the capital they had subscribed to that corporation, 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 officers of the Credit Mobilier were changed. This
led to hostile feelings, and there were men who had large interest in the AAmes contract 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 procure
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 was settled a contract to that effect was executed, assigning
the Ames contract to the trnstees. 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. Duff
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. Amnes
to extend the contract to the rest of'this road, but it was not extended to the rest of
t.he road. We know of no resolution or other record of acts 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 st6cked 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 15 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
cestais que trust, as stated in that answer.
7'o the 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 contractor 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 persons to do so a premium was offered and paid in these bonds. Even with this inducement there was difficulty 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, 1568, 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 distributed among the persons parties to the assignment who complied with the condlitions of the assignment and trust, with an agreement, on their part, to restore the same,
or the proceedspro rata,, 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 conmpany 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 tr'ust; the persons who, as individ-nals, were associated with Oakes Ames when he made the contract. The truistees who




56                           CREDIT  MOBILIER.
received and divided them were not trustees for the corporation, nor was the property
or the profits thereof the corporation's nor had that company ever had any other connection with or relation to the Ames contract, and the profits derived from it, except
the duty and the rights defined by the contract of the 16th day of October, 1867. That
was the origin and definition of the right of the compahy, it is true, and this may have
misled persons who have not taken the 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 property of the company, but from property that had been their own before the contract of'
the 16thday 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 July3,
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 the indenture of the trust and assignment of the Ames contract,
and complied with the conditions thereof, and in that character, and not as stockholders in the Credit Mobilier.' It should, perhaps, be added, that in July, 1868, the trustees demanded an advance of the Credit Mobilier, as stipulated to be made by the agreement of the 16.th day of October, 1867. That company waswithout means to perform
their engagement, and without credit to obtain means, owing to litigation about their
right to' cliim to be a corporation, and other,,questions which destroyed confidence. In
consequence of this, the contract was rescinded, 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 these allotments was very much less than the nominal price attached to them.
To the twentieth. 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 certain 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 inldirectly, during those years.
To the twenty-first. No.other dividends were made by the company except the dividlend for 1866 and 1867, of 6 per cent. each, unless it be that an equalization of interest 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 Augnst, 1867, for the simple reason
the company did none. Its functions were gone by the refusal to let it take the Alnes;
contract. Its capital is locked up in the obligations and property taken' when executing the Hoxie contract and the work prior to the Ames contract. Its capital is cer —
tainly diminished; but to what extent will depend on what it can realize out of these
assets.
To the twenty-second. The money, bonds, and stock referred to were allotted and distributed to and among the persons parties to the assignmentin 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 stockholders 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
trustand 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 transactioin.
To the twentiy-third. The shares of stock in the Union Pacifie Railroad, which were
received by the Credit Mobilier up to the date of the Ames contract, and those received
by the trustees of that contract afterward, were fully paid, and by the parties receiv —
ing them, in this manner: That company and the said trustees were successively contractors 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, the Union Pacific Railroad, instead of paying one hundred dollars to the contractors, delivered them a share of stock, the face of which was one hundred dollars, and
extinguished a debt of that anmount 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 iiot
above pir but would gladly receive subscription to capital on the same terms.
To the twenty-fifth. The stock referred to was held in the name of Thomas C. Durant,
who was the president of the 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 transferred 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 been
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 subscription 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 contract, and, as already stated,
canceled the subscription.
We have already stated all that relates to the transfer of tlhe shares to Oakes Ames
as trustee. Durant was the actual holder for undeclared purchasers. He transferred
them for Dillon, the president, and lie 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, understanding 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 sulch parties as they, the said Durant and
Ames, have agreed upon and designate, say to Durant parties, $37,000, and Ames parties, $28,000.
(Signed)                                          "JOHN DUFF.'THOS. C. DURANT.
" S. BARDWELL.
"OAKES AMES."OLIVER AMES.'JOHN B. ALLEY.
"' C. S. BUSHNELL.
" SIDNEY DILLON.
" H. S. McCOMB."
"The undersigned, stockholders in the Credit Mobilier of America, recommnend 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 AMIES.
"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                       C- REDIT MOBILIER.
two hundred and fiftyy 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 twenty-eighth. At the time when these shares were issued to Oakes.Ames as
trustee, he paid the company the par value for them in money. Alnd exactly as much
was paid, and in the same manner, als 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 until
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
lday of June, 1868, when the dividend then made by the trustees was paid to him.
The dividends of December, 1867, and January, 1868, were paid him on the ninetythree 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 comnmunicated to the company, and we have no
knowledge who the parties were that proposed to pnrchase the shares of him or in his
name. The company received $100 per share in cash for the stock, from Oakes Ames
as from every one else. That amount 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."
WTe do not know andl have no information what Mr. Ames received, if anything, froml
his cestais que trust. 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 thlese two hundred and fifty shares until the 17th clay of June, 1868, to Mr. Ames.
The back dividends did not, at the time MrI. Ames got and paid for the stock, amount
to anything except as to the ninety-threetshares, 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 supposed it was anything else, so far as we know.
To the thirtyl-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 subscription 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 contracts 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 wouldhave
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 had 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 torture 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 Faut subscription. Certainly, however, he never pretended to a right to the stock
he thus asked the company to issue to another.
To the thirty —fojurth. 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  MIOBILIER.                                59
receipts signed by the plaintiff and 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 plaintiff on the days stated, opposite his signature.
SIDNEY DILLON.
JOHN M. S. WILLIAMS.
JOHN B. ALLEY.
JOHN DUFF.
C. S. BUSHNELL.
R. G. HAZARD.
Witness: E. 1-I. 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, Jolhn 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,
Conlnissioner for Pennsylvacnia.
Before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for the city of Washington, in the
District of Colnumbia, personally appeared Oakes Ames, who, being duly sworn, says
the facts set forth in the foregoing answers (excluding the answer to the thirtieth interrogatory, 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. CALLAN,
Notary Public and Commissioner for State of Pennsylvania.
List of December 12, 1867.
Names.               Stock.               Names.                Stock.
Oliver. Barnes.........15  Fourth National Bank.......... 750
Thomas C. Durant.......  4, 915   Barton H. Jenks.............          500
Willie Davis Train...175 A. A. Low.-100
L. Eugene French...........      20  J. B. Pigot.2..........               200
Charles A. Lombard.....    775  Harvey Sanford-...   _....      125
Sidney Dillon, president... ——.    400  Henry Trowbridge.-...........          75
Sidney Dillon...  1, 005  Ezekiel H. Trowbridge..        50
William  T. Glidden............    625  W. F1. Day, cashier, in trust. -..     100
G. M. S. Williams...............   620  Royal E. Robbins......-.-.           200
R. G. Hazard —.. —-----. ——..  1, 690  William  A. Cummrings..........       100
Oliver S. Chapman.   -412  Frank W. Andrew..                                    100
Oliver Ames... —-—.. —--  4, 680   S. H. Fessenden................         50
C. S. Bushnell...................    410   Nathan Peck................     100
Williamn H. Macy —. —--  ------    300  Pupont P. Foske-.                        50
J. H' Scranton                         5  Elizabeth Hazard......             34
R. Griswold Gray...............  1, 620  Elizabeth Hazard, jr....              13
Joseph Nickerson.... —      - 3...  380  Anna Hazard....                      20
Benjamin Holliday                    750  Mary P. Hazard...            10
Benjamin E. Bates..............    500   Lydia Torrey                            1
Frederick Nickerson_.-.             250  Anna Horner. —-.. ——.. —-.-      I
John B. Alley..................    290   Sophia Vernon-. —------------          1
Isaac P. Hazard. —---     -..      380  Henry Hotchkiss. —..-..... —-         150
Samuel Hooper & Co.... —            750  William  B. Bristol... -     -...       50
Horatio Gilbert................ 185   Sylvester M. Beard.........         100
Cyrus P. McCormick.-...-  -—.    945  Ely Beard. —-.. —-----                   100
David Jones....................    380   Gamaliel Bradford............. 100
Oakes Amnes..............1, 955  Le Grand Lockwood-...         500
Elisha Atkins................... 62'2  John R. Duff.........         1.., 880
Ezra H. Baker.............. Samuel S. Dana................                    100
H. J. McComb -................    750  John M. Davies..500
Horatio J. Gilbert....... 137  Robert G. S. McNeil............              5
Ezra H. Baker, jr............50  E. C. Moore..................- --    10




60                          CREDIT  MOBILIER
List of December 12, 1867-Continued.
Names.              Stock.             Names.               Stock.
Paul Pohl... —-..-.6  John Smith..................       405
J. W. Grimes...........   380  Aaron Hobart, jr. —.. —---—.        25
Thomas Nickerson. - - -150  Isaac Thacher -..                   r      92
George Opdyke.-.-...... ——.    712  James B. Johnston..............    200
Josiah Bardwell................ 710  B. L. Boyer-..                      75
Josiah Barcdwell, jr-300  Charles H. Neilson.1..                      100
C. C. Waite.- - -.................   - - - - -.. 80  Josiah Hedlea - - -..   100
B. D. Stewart-.................   5 F. Skinner & Co.-.  500
H. C. Crane —.. —-—. -----        128  H. C. Crane, trustee.............    60
E. W. Gilmore..................    150  Charles H. Neilson. —--- --. —. 50
Rowland Hazard.-.............. —-—.   300  Oakes Ames, trustee.....   93
John L. King. -.-....    80
HOXIE CONTRACT.
NEW YORK, Anugust 8, 1864.
To the President and Comnwittee on Contracts of the 7Union Pacific Railroad Company:
GENTLEMEN: I propose to enter into a contract to build and equip one hundred
miles of your railroad and telegraph, commencing at Omaha City, complying, as far as
practicable, to the general specifications hereunto 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 locomotives
and ten platform 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 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 belonging to said company for the purpose of obtaining 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 one bridge
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 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 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 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 which the engineer shall deduct from each section its proljortion 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 act;sof Congress
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 7 per cent. interest, payable semi-annually in the city of New York, which bonds shall be receivable as the
bonds of the bompany, 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 issue as soon as the provisions 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 company to




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                              61
execute certificates of an amount to correspond to the 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 furds 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 whenever the amount
so advanced, including what may be due on construction, shall exceed five hundred
thousand dollars, or whenever said advance shall have been made oyer five mlonths, 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 namned, 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 obligation 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, andcl am prepared to commence at once, having sent
cattle and tools to Nebraska.
H. M. HOXIE,
By H. C. CRANE,
A ttornwey.
H. M. HoxIE Esq:
DEAR SIR: YOU will please go on with the work nnder 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.
GEORGE T. M. M. DAVIS,
Special Comantttec.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1864.
Above contract is approved and ratified.
[SEAL.]                                            JOHN A. DIX,
C. S. BUSHNELL,
GEO. T. M. DAVIS,
Special Conmmittee ajppoihnted for t1his puepose May 12, 1864.
NEw Yorx; October 4, 1864;
To the President and Execuetive Committee of the Union Pacific Railroad Company:
On condition that your 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 lnmeidian 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,
SpLecial Committee.
OCTOBER 4, 1864.
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, witnesseth:
The said Hoxie, for and in consideration of one dollar to him in hand paid, the receipt




62                           CREDIT  MOBILIER.
of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby agrees to make over and assign to said Durant, or any party or parties lie lmay direct, who will furnish the necessary funds to
complete the samte, all the unfinished portion of the above-mentioned contract, and all
rights under the same, at any time when called upon by the said Durant, or his heirs
or assigns, so to do, upon the payment according to the contract for all work done and
materials on hand, said party of the first part to have five days' notice.in writing,
at Omaha, of the intention of the party of the second part to take a transfer of the
contract.
The engineers shall proceed at olnce to adjust the accounts and make up the estimate
of settlement for the work done according to the bontract, which shall be completed
as soon as practicable, but the party of the second part is to become responsible for all
labor or demanlds of every kind or description pertaining to the contract after the expiration of the tive da.ys' notice; and fromn 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 of the first part ten thousand dollars in the stock of the company, and five thousand dollars in cash; in consideration of which 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 of August
last.
In witnl;less whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands this 13th day of Septemiber, 1864.
(Signed)                                              HI. HOXIE,
(Signed)                                            By H. C. CRANE,
Attorney.
THOS. C. D URANT.
[5-cent stamp.]
Agreelment mlade this sixteenth day of August, 1867, between the Union Pacific la~ilroad Company, party of the first part, and Oakes Ames, party,of the second part, witnesseth: that the party of the first part and Oakes Ames, party of the second part, witnesseth: 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:
F'`irst. The party of the second part agrees and binds himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, to build and equip the following-named portion of the railroad 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 $4V,000 per mile.
12d, 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.
667 miles.
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
Railroad Company transport the material; the whole to be constructed in a good and
workmanlike manner, upon the same general plan and specifications as adopted east of
the one hundredth meridiap 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 tfhe first part, not 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 men 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.
Foureth. The party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns,,




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                                63
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 estimate and cost of reducing the same
to the grade and curvatures as established by the chief engineer, or as approved from
time to time by the company, shall be deducted 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, 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 therefirom for work done or to be done, and materials furnished or to be furnished for or 6n
account of the road west of the one hundredth 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, adluinistrators,
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 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 first-class road,
with equipmeuts; and if the same, in the opinion of the chief engineers, is not so prosecuted, both as regards quality and 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 lhe proper cost and expense of the party
of the second part.
Seventh,.'rhe grading, bridcging, and superstructlure to be completed under the supervision of the general agent of the company, to the satisfaction of the chief engineer,
and to be of the same character, as to worklmanship and 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 expertses 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 enoineer and consulting engineer and their immediate assistants, andcl the expenses of the general survey of
the route.
Niinth. The depot-buildings, inachinle-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 thi: general agent and chief engineer of
the cormnpany, and all turinels 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 estimate 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-builldings, superstructure and
cost of -telegraph, butt all material delivered or in transit for the account of the conilpany may be estimated for.
Eleventh. Payments hereon snail be made to the party of the second part, his heirs,
executors, administrators, or assigns, in cash; but if the (overnment bonds received
by the company cannot be converted into money at their par value net, and the firstmortga.ge bonds of the company at ninety cents on the dollar net, then the said party
of the second part, his heirs, executors, adcministrators, 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 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 terms 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 proportionate amount of equipments of like character, to be supplied on the second section
of one hundred miles after the same is completed.
Thirteenth. 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 purchase the equipments and expend any portion of said amount, provided at any point




64                           CREDIT  MOBILIER.
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.
louroteelth. The telegraph line is included herein under the term railroad, and is to
be constructed in the same manner and with similar materials as in the line east of the
one hundredth meridian. The said larties hereto, in considera-tion of the premises and
of their covenants herein, do mutually agree severally to perform and fulfill their
several agreements above written.
This contract having been submit-ted 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 the Honorable 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 Company and
Oakes Ames, referred to the executive committee by a resolution of the boartd,August 16, 1867, to settle the, details, be approved, andc that the proper 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.
Resolved, That the option to exteund this contract to Salt Lake be referred to the
boarcl, with a recommendation that the said optioln be accepted.
(Signed)                                     OLIVER AMES,
C. S. BUSHNELL,
SPRINGER HARBAUGH,
THOS. C. DIJRANT,
Executxive Authority.
TRANSFER OF AMES'S CONTRACT TO TRUSTEES, &c.
MEMOIRANDJUM OF AGREEMAIENT, in triplicate, made this 15th day of October, 1867,
between Oakles 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, Massachusa:tts; Sidney Dillon, of the city of NeW York; Cornelius S. Bushnell, of New Haven, Connecticut; Henry S. McComb, of Willington,
Delaware; and Benjamin E. Bates, of Boston, Massachusetts, parties of the second
part, and the Credit Mobilier of America, party of the third part, witnesseth: Tlhat
whereas the party of the first part has undertaken a cdrtain 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 raisiung 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 corporation duly established by law, is empowered by its charter to adcvance aud 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 necessaryto complete said contract, provided sufficient assurance may be made to said party
of the third part herein that such sums shall be duly expended in the work of completing said railroadc and telegraph line, afql 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 contract, if honestly
and faithfully executed, will be both profitable and advantageous to the parties performing the same, are therefore willing to guarantee the'performance 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 interests 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 entitledl 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 pcat hereto,
hereby, for andl in consideration of the sum of one dollar, lawfill money of the United
States, to him duly paid by tile party of the second part, and for divers other good and
valuable considerations herein thereunto moving, do*&h hereby assign, set over, and




CREDIT MOBILIER.                                     65
firansfer unto the said Thonmas C. Dnrant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon,
Cornelius' S. Busilrell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, parties of the second
part, all the right, title, and interest of, in, and to, the certain contracts heretoffore made
and executed by and between the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the said Oakes
Ames, bearing date the sixteenth day of August, 1867, for the construction of portions
of the railroad and telegraph line 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 limrnitations, to wilt:
First. That they, the said parties of the second p:art, shall perform all the terms and
conditions of the contract so assigned, in all respectts, which, in and by the terms and
conditions thereof, is undertaken and assumed aniti 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 arid expended by them, or either of themn,
in executing or performing the said contract, with interest and commission thereon as
hereinafter provided.
T'hird. 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 trnstees for execntiug and
perfiorming 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 par-ties of the second part.
Fourth. To hold all the rest and residue of the said proceeds and avails for the use
uad benefit of snch  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 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
o;.f 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 lirmitations herein contained, which are, on their part, to be complee  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 said contract during the preceding six
months to each such stockholder only in said Credit Mobilier of America who, being a
stockholder in the.Union Pacife Railroad, shall have rmade 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 snares of stock owned by said shareholders of the Credit.Mobilier of America in the capital stock of the Union Pacifie Railroad Company on the
day of the date hereof and six-tenths of any stock in the Union Pacific Railroad Company he may have received as dividend or otherwise, 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 Wailroad 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 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 MIobilier of Amrnerica who shall neglect or refts6 to e-ecute and deliver unto the
parties of the second part his proxy Or power of attorney in the manner and for the
purpose hereinbenore provided, or who shall, in any way, or by any proceedings, knowingly hinder, delay, or interfere  with the execution or performance of the trust and
conditions   herein declared and set forth; and the above transfer and conveyance of
said contract is rade upon these fiurther trusts and conditions, to wit:
First. TIhlat said parties of the second part, their survivors aind successors, trustees as
aforesaid, in all thir acts and doings in thire execution and per:ormauce of said contract, andi in the (execution of their several trusts and conditions hereinl set forth, sihall
act by the concurreant assent of four of their number expressedl in writing, or by yea
and Inay vote, at a meetino 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,
and not otherwise.
Second. Satid parties of the second part shall keep an office in the city of New York,
for the transaction of the business ingidental to said trust.  Meetings of said trustees.nay be held on call of the secreta.'y on request of any two of their number;   sich call
maty be made personally or by mail.
Third. The said trustees shall appoint a competent person as secretary, who siall 
keep a faithiful record of d1l their acts, proceediungs, and contracts, in boenks providced
for that purpose, and shill cause to be kept suitable books of accounts and vouacheirs of
all their business transactions.
JFourth. Tie said trustees shall cause a  monthly statement tc be made, showing t1he
5x




(6                            CREDIT MiOBILIER.
aImount due from the Union Pacific lRailroad Company on account of work done, or
equipment or material iurnished undcler the contract, according to the estimate of the
engineer of the Union Pacific  Railroad Company, as provided in said contract, a copy
of wrhich statement shall be filrnlished to the Credit Mobilier of America.
And the above transfer and conveyance of said contract is made upon the further
trust and conditiol:
First. That in case of the death, declination, disability by reason of sickness, or absence from the country for the space of six months, or neglect to fuilfill the duties and
obligations of said trust for the same time by either said trnstee, the remaining or surviving trustees may declare the place of such trustees to be vacant, and fill such vacancy by vote, in manner aforesaid.
Secovd. That in case any one of said trustees shall willfully neglect or evade theperformance 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 trust or condition, according to the true intent thereof, or shall appropriate t;o his use or benefit any money or other valuable thing belonging to or appertaininug to said trust-fund or property, he shall not be entitled firther 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, a-nd agree faithfully
to. execute and perfolrm the same according to the terias, conditions, and limitations.
herein set forth.
The party of the third part, in consideration of these premises, hereby agree to advance, as upon 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 condlitions of said contract upon the call of said parties ofI the second part, their survivors and successors,
such sunis never to exceed in the whole the aliount 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 the
said party of the third part do further agree for the consideration aforesaid, and for
an aim-ount 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 performance and execution of said contract' according
to its terms and conditions, and to indemnuify and hold.harmless the said parties of
the first and second parts of and from all cost, liability, loss or danlage to thetn 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 conditionThat 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 January 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. DURANT.
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)            CLARK BELL.
THE CIEDIT MOBILIER OF AMERICA, by its President,
SIDNEY DILLON.
Attest:
BENJ. F. HAM,
Assistant Secrwetary.
Receipt of dividend of Credit Hobilier.
NEW YORaK,,1868.
Received frorn the Credit Mobilier of America, certificate No., for   shares of the
capital stock of the UJnion Pacific Railroad Company,, and scrip for, of a share,
in full payment of dividend, under resolution adopted December'28, 1867.




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                                  67
Receipt to trustees under Amtes's co.ntract of divicdend _paid by them to the stock7loldere s of the
Credit Mobilier, Decemiber 12, 1867.
Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius
S. Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, the sums set opposite our respective names in full of the dividends declared December 12, 1867, under and pursuant to the foregoing contracts, and payable on the 3d day of January, 1868, and we
1do hereby severally, in consideration of the amount so received by us, consent to and
approve of the foregoinlo 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, frdm all liability, personally or
otherwise, by reason of their acts as parties to said foregoing triplicate agreement.
Receipt, 4-c., Jancuary 3, 1868.
Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, Corinelius
S. Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin E. Bates, the sums set opposite our respective names in full of the dividend declared Jailnuary 3, 1868, under and pursuant
to the foregoing contracts, and payable the:3d da y of Ja nuary, 1868, and we do hereby
severally, in consideration of the amllounts so received by us, consent to and approve of
the foregoing contracts, and agrree severally to be bound by and conform to all the
terms and conditions or said agreement, and wNe do hereby release.the said Thomas C.
Durant, Oliver Ames, and their associates, from  all lia!lbility, personalIly or otherwise,
by reason of tleir acts as parties to sa.id foregoing triplicate agreement.
Receipt, k'c., Juine 17, 1868.
Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Amnes, John Duff, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S.
Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjaniiin E. Bates, the sumls set opposite our respective names in full of the dividends declared June 17, 1868, under and pursuant'to the
foregoing contract, and payable on the 17th day of Juniie, 1868, and we do hereby severally, and in consideration of the aimount so received by us, consent to and approve of
the foregoing contract, and agree severally to be bound by alnd conform to all the terms
and conditions of said agreemen-it, and we do hereby release the said Thomas C. Durant,
Oliver Ames, and their associates, from all liability, personal or othllerwise, by reason of
their acts as parties to said foregoing triplicate agreement,.
Receipt, 4'c., Jiuly 3, 1868.
Received of Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, John Dufff, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S.
Bushnell, Henrv S. MeComni, and Benja.rmin E. Bates, the sulms set opposite our respective names in full of the allotnment 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 fierms and conditions of said agreement, and we do hereby release the said Thomas C. Durant, Oliver
Amnes, and their associates, from all liability, personal or otherwise, by reason of their
acts as parties to said foregoing agreement, or either of theulm,. ald we aglree to pay such
ratable sunmsas said trustees may call for, liot exceedilg the amounts so received, to
enable them to complete the construction contract.
LIST  OF STOCKHOLDERS, CREDIT  MOBILIER  OF AMERICA,  FEBRUARY
20, 1868.
Nanes.                        SLock.      Names.                          Stock.
Oliver W. Barnes-...-.. 15  J. B. Johnson.....................   200
Thomas C. Durant.                  44,658  E. H. Baker, jr.-.....      50
George F. Train.-..        175  H. C. McComb -..-.-.-.... 1,250
L. E. French...........-.... 20  Paul Pohl, jr                            6
C. A. Lambard..                    150  J. W. Grimes... — 380
Sidney Dillon........... --—... 1, 005  G. Opdyke.....   712
W. T. Glidden ---—.... —-. —-----   625  J. Bardwell                           730
J. M. S. Williamns.      -....   620  J. Bardwell, trustee...-.        300
R. G. Hazard           -1............., 680  C. C. Waite-.................. 80




68                            CREDIT  MOBILIEPE.
NNames.                       Stock.      Names.                         Stock.
O. S. Chapman............. 412  B.D. Stewart                                  5
Oliver Ames.......................4,680  H. C. Crane_..._..             128
C. S. Bushnell. —---------------''510  R. Hazard.......... —------- 300
W. H. Macy.. —-—.-. —.... 300  John L. King.    -           -      80
J. M. Scranton ---..- -S.. 5  Jourth National Bank -. —-........ 750
G. G. Gray -. —-.... —.- --—. —-. — 1,300  A. A. Low...-.-...... 100
J. Nieckerson-.....-... 380  J. B. Pigot.1.......                   150
Ben. Holladay. —----— 7... —--—.  750  Thomas Nickerson -. —..-.......... 150
B. E. Bates -         -500 IL Sanford.........- -    125
F5. N0rickerson -----------------—. —-  250  H. Trowbridge ---------—.. ----—. 75
J. B. Alley —                        290  E. H. Trowbridge. —.-...........     50
I. P. Hazard                         380  W. F. Day, Cashier, in Tr      -      100
Samuel Ilooper & Co    -- --—.-......750  W. A. Cummings      -               100
II. Gilbert     --...........185  RE. bi. Robbinss                             300
IH. I. Gilbert.....-..137  T.. W. Andrews....................  100
C. P. McCormick-.-.c....            945  S. 1. Fessenden ------------------  50
David Jones ---—.. ——. —---------  380  N. Peek --------— 1 —--------—. -— 100
Oakes Ames — 1.. -....,95....... 1..5  P. B. Foster —..... — —..... 50
E. Atkins. —---------------------- 622  Elizabeth Hazard-..... —-------—.  34
E. H. Baker ---------------------- - 6 23  Elizabeth Hazard, Tr.-          -.... 13
Mlary P. Hazard ---------------—.   10  Anna Hazard -..... ——.-......... 20
Lydia Torrey   -..        -11  B M. Boyer...-...-......... Be75
Anna Hornmer      --                   1... C..... H. Nielson -. —--. —----------- - 1 00
Sophia Vernon —----- -— 1-J. I. Heddend.d..,.............. -100
H. Hotchkiss. —---—. —. —--------  150  F. Skinner & Co................... 250
W. D. Bristol. —-                     50  Thomas M. Stetson...- —.......... 30
S. M. Beard. -—.. —. —-------------  100  H. Blood-........ —------------—.  7
E. Beard..                     100  A. G. Lathrop.-.. —. -.....-....... 10
G. Bradford-100  H. V......... 1               Gray. - -.......... —---..... 10
LeGrande Lockwood -............... 500  J. Richardson ------------- - -—. —.. 50
J. R. Duff -80  Oakes Ames, trustee. —---—.-...- 25t)
J. M. Davies. —.. —--- --—.. ——..00  H. C. Crane, trustee....... ——..... - - 180
R. G. S. McNeil.-...-..5  W. 5H. Newbold, Son & Aertsen -.-.. 400
E. C. MIorery.. —-. —-... ——.. ——.   10  H. A. iRobins................ —J...   100
Jno. Smith -405  J. Gardner trstee —..        625
A. Hobart, jr.......................  25  F. Skinner, trustee-                 250
I. Thatcher. —.. —.. —---—. —-      92  WT. B. Stevens, trustee..............  50' ASHINGTON'  D. C., Thur/sday December 19, 1872.
Comnmittee met at 10 a. m.; all the members present.
H. S. MC3CoMiiB recalled for cross-examination.
By Mr. ALLEY:
Question. - You stated in your testimony the other day thint I 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 nominally at
the hcad, he followed  generally anything  that M fr. Ames positively
directed him to do, and thaft he would not do much he did not assent to.
Both of these statements cannot be true; which  one of them  is true?
Wi''sNESS. Put your questions separately, and I will auswer them.
Q. My question is, which statement is true
W~ITNESS. Read the first stateument and ask me, and I will answer
fully in regard to it.
Q. I will ask you if you mean to say tht, I heave refused to let y ou
see the books.-Answer. I do most iemphatically, not only once, but a
number of times.
Q. When?-A. A number of' tinmes since you hiave been on the executive commrittee of the Credit Mobiler.
Q. And you say that you havte not had the opportunity to see theam?A. Not with your consent.




CREDIT  NTOBILIER.                         69
Q. NTor i n my presence?-A. Yes; I have seen them in your' presence.,
but not wAith your consent.
Q.  Yo01 say that I have ruled the whole corporatioen with autocratic
power!'-A-.   did  and I repeat it.
Q. And yoa   stay you saw t he books in my presence, but not with my
consenlt A —.    I do; I saw them in your pre serce once or twice without
yoiur con sent u or your kno iledg e; at leas- t I did not know that yon saw
ine examining tPhemi.
Q. But ila my presence'? A  You were inl the roolm.
Q. Howv recently did I refuse to'allowi you to see them? —A. Ever
since you catne into the Credit NAeobilier.
Q. tow reent2ly? —A.  I have not askIed yotl     proba-bly, wi thlin three
years.  Do you waint to 1know \why?
Q. NTot particiarsly..  You say in yTour te2stimaony that when you heard
this conversatioihe betweeln Mr. Brooks and miyself there was a distinet
agreement anad understanding that he should control the democratic
side of the 1House?-A. I say tehis, and i: wxant you to note what I say;
I say thalt you ad  tMr. Broloks, in my presence on several occasions,
were arrancting tha. t you shouldt give hil stockl and that he should give
yon service. I say that yeou  spoke to 1inm about his demand for stock.
I say that le lspoke to me about his pleading with you to give it; and
I say that in this conversation I heard IMr. Brooks reicmark in substance
that he could compensatee the copa:ny fully for all the favor done in
giving Mim  this stock at par, and you dare not deny it. I say further
that; after that thing' was done you spoke contemptuously of him. You
said you had gveun it to him       na, and that you were compelled to; that is
what I say.
tQ  That is not answering niy question.l-. It is answswering your
question fully.
Q. I ask you if, in that conversattion, you  mean to sa1y that I required
M r. Brooks, or that Mr. Brooks agreed, to control the democratic side
of the  louse - A. Don t you pult words into ray mouth.  The expression I stated I heard him use in this conversation )was, that he would
take, care of the democrtatick side of the douso.
Q. He being in Conglress'-A. Yes; aind a Governme nt director at
t. he same time, and the owner of one hlndred1 shares of the Credit Mobilier stock besides this, which his son —ia-lw   he ld at the timle, althou.gh
a Government director.
Q. You, are sure of that? —A.. Yes, sir; I amt-n sure of that.
Q. He was a men-)ber of Congress at the sa:ie time'?-A. Yes, sir;
a mremnber of Congress and a Governmient d irector, anld I ain sure he
wAas a very pliant tool, and that you know very well.
Q. EHow long has he been a m ember of Con gress? —A.. I can tell you
that by reference to the record.
Q. Do you know about the time,? —i. I think hle htas been in Congre<ss  tll of six or s eveln years;  I am very sure that he xias a meerber
of Conor=ess then, and a G-overnzenlt director be3sides.
Q. You twhi.S khe hlas been a mlenlber of Cmoreess Si. or seve  Sen a rs?A4.  Y~es, sir; dastinga t i'l nfii- ow baclk.I.
2. At-lb,_ tt'lie \w-as 7 a nm -ic)ler   o.f':on ress at tile timea you alk1i1Ilude
to? —-A. I sa, t'hu is tly beie-f
Q. And the condition was, that Ie w\7is to take care of the denmo:ecratic
side of the House,?A.  That lie   as to thake care oi -the demorr-a;tic side
of the House.
Q. Do -you remember whether {r,. Brooks was elected to the Fortieth




70                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
Congress?.-A. _No, I do not. I do not keep the run of Congress. I am
telling you what I believe is true.
Q. You are sure he was a member of Congress at this time f-A. Yes;
I feel sure of that, so far as I know a nvthing. Let me state myself
clearly; my recollection is that  Mr. Brooks has been in Congress ever
since he has been connected with the Union P.acific iailroad; that is
may recollection and belief; do you doubt it?
Q. I am not on the stand. You have no recollection about Ir. BrookS
not being a menmber of Congress during this period?-A. Withotut referring to somle rec6rd, I have no recollection of Mir. Brooks not being a
member of Congress during this period. I do not know when he entered Congress, or anything further than I have said.
Q. You do not remember whether he was a candidate for the Fortieth
Congress and mwas defeated, do you? —A. I do not recollect that. I do
not know whether that was so or. not.
Q. Now, I would like to know about the time that conversation took
place? -A. These conversations, some of them -
Q. I want to know ini regard to this particular conversation.-A. I
cannot give you the date of this particular conversation; there were a
great many of themrn.
Q. Cannot you state generally about the time?-A. I think in January, February, or March, 1868.
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 melnorandumn w hich, after I have consulted, will enable mle to answer you.
Q. Then it is your impression that the conversation occurred within
the months you have named — A. M y impression is, that it was within
the months of January, February, anld ]March; and that the conversation occurred two or three times.
Q. Anud you know that Mr. Brooks was a member of Congress at that
time — A. I did not say that; I say that iMr. 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 mnemiber 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 stockf-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, 1867, 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 IL
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 referred 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 MOBILIER.                         71
time Nwhen Mr. Alley and MJr. Brooks had the conversations referred to
with regard to the fifty shares of stock, and I heard Hfr. Brooks say in
that connection, distinctly, that he would take care of the democratic
side of the House. I noted it cldown at the time. I will tell you what led
me to take an especial interest in these conversations betweein Mr. Alley
-and TMr. Broolks. While the negotiations were in progress Mr. Alley
exlpressed great disregard and contempt for Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Brooks
was about as free in his expressions of friendly regfard 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 disgusted me with them both. The Union Pacific Iailroad occupied three:rooms i.n a building at the corner of Cedar and Nassau 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 writing, whelln  r. Alley and Mr. Brooks took seats at the opposite end of
the table and discussed Credit Mobilier stock. Mr. Brooks was imploring ar. Alley to gi re these shares to him,  urginog that he had renderedl
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 thle stock, alnd said, "  guess we will have to let himr have it."
M3r. Brooks made the remarlk, 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 remlark unless he was a member of Congress?-A. Or expected to be.
Q. But you are not sure whether lie was a member of Congress V —A.
I say that is my recollection.
Q. "Would there be any significance unless lie was a mlember of Congress?- 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? —A. 3My recollection confirms that, most emphatically, the remarks he made to you and the reply made by you was,' WTell, I gness we will have to let him have it." But I cannot now give
the date.
Q. You stated a monelnt ago, and were entirely certain, it was in.January, February, or Nvlarch, 1868?-A. I 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 CaE MAR.N:
Q. What is your 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 Railroad.
Q. Is not your recqllection 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




7~Y CREDIT MOBILIER.
fix very nearly the precise month from the data to which 1 have referred.
There are circumstances connected with it which will refresh my recol
lection as to the date.
By Mr. ALLEY:
Q. You are, however, I understand you to sacy, ready to state mostpostitively, and almost certainly, tehat it was between the month of November, 1867, and the month of 3May, 1868? —A. I will say from,July
to July; froml July, 1867, to about the same imonth, 1868.
Q. You ar-e willing to say you are positive that it was within thia
limit? —A. I will tell you what will refresh my memory, so you nmaiy
see there is nothing about it to conceal. A3ly recollection is that this,
conversation took place and this promise was given to iMr. Brooks
duringo 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 notknow how long he was away, but I can ascert'ain that filct, and also
ascertain whether MIr. Brooks was a member of Congress at the time
or not.
Q. You say that a portion of that stock-thiirty-two shares-came from,
Atr. Ames?-A. I said that Mr. Amnes told nme they took thirty-two of hils.,
shares to make up 3Ir. Brooks's complement. I did not say that any of
it came from him.
Q. You say that 3Mr. Alley finally consented to give hir fifty shares;
of Credit Mlobilier stock, aind that it was transferred to MIr. Brooks or
his son-in-1law, Neilson.  When was that given and when wras it tranlsferred — A. I have said that the agreement was made while Mr.
Durant was in Europe.  Ir. Alley Ikept frorm 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 arlid
ledger and all the Credit 31obilier books and laying them down on this,
table would enable ine to answer a great many questions that I couldl
not answer now.
Q. Then you cannot state the date of the transaction — A. >Not be1 g.:
an officer of the Credit Mobilier and not being present when the certicfiate
was transferred, I cannot say as to the date.
Q. Can you not say whether the certificate was given to Mr. Brooks
or Mr. Neilson?-A. My impression is that Mr. Brooks was, undoubtedly, too smart to take it in his own name.
Q. Yet you say here that I gave it to MIr. Brooks~ —A. If I saw your'
plocket-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 gAiven to Mr. Brooks or toM1r. Neilson? —A. You awarded it to James Brooks: whom  you transferred it to I do not knilow.
Q. You bave sworn here that this was in the spring of 1868; you ha(
no hesitation then?-l-A. That was my recollection.
Q. Your answer to the interrogatory as to what Mr. Neilson's fult
name was, was "' C(harles 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, 4'It was subsequent to the letters you haveo
produced cl?" and you respond, "0, yes.,"-A. The circumstance of its,
occurring (luring Mr. Durant's absence, was not brought to my mind
until this mornlJing; I know now that the occurrence took place while




CQEDIT MOBILIER.                          73
Mr. Durant was in Europe, and, therefore, I shall be able to fix the date,
by that circumstalnce.
By the CI-IAx ~IAE N:
Q. You understand that the one lundred  sliares of stock you sp, eak
of was really the property of i2r. Broos? —-A. 0, ye; everybody about;
thie office understood that. 
Q. Did y-o  kZnow Rnythlg anyti out the oriainal subscript-ion of that, one
hundred sharles?-A. I wnould rather Mr. Durant would answer  that,.
question  g; oto nmy infoirm a.tion fta him, and I could only answer ifrolio
hearst ay.
Q. Yos1 did( personallsy Low thai-t MlIr. B, rooks received dividentd'o —.
A. I did personally kinow of iMr. Broolks receiving dividenlds, and that
M11r. Duraint did not think he ought to have theml. 3ir. Brooks took at,
one ti,-ne $0000 and at anot'her $8,100; that was prior to this fifty
sitares transaci;ion.  I was present in thle rooL and lheard Mr. Durant
agree to give tiin the mnoney, or the Credit, Miobilier of America stock.
Q. Can you give us about the time?-A. I would rather Mr. Durant
wonld answepr that. It was after the orgaanization of the Credit Mfobilier,
and after tha t whLile the Credit Mobilier transactions were being carrie(1
on att Nassau anld Cedar streets; I did nlot count the money that was
given in these settlements, you know. I only heard iMr. Brooks claili
that, there was so much money he ought to have. M/r. Durant said he9
would give it to him, but that he did not think he was entitledl 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
firom I\Mr. Allley, did yon understtand that lhe claimed that as this 50 percent. acdditional stock lie would be entitled to as his original] subscription? —_. No, because he would be entitled to that under the resolution
of the cormpany.
Q. He would then have been entitled to fifty shafLres -A. Yes, sir..
Allow me to say this: every mnan:who stood on the books of the Credit
Mobilier at the time the stock was increased was entitled to his percentage of increase. The increase was-in this form: the directors of theCredit Mobilier, the large stockholders, 3Mr. Ames among the nDumbers,
agreed to increase the stock to the extent of twelve hundred and fifty
thousand dollars; it was two millions before.  With tllat increase they
gave a Unio:n Pacific Railroad bond for each ten shares' worth the price
of the stock, so that the person could sell his bond and p-y for his stock
if he chose to.  For instance, if 1 had one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier 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 itt $5,000
Union Pacific Railroad bonds.
Q. You understand that these one hundred shares of stock which
stood inll the name of Hr. Neilson 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 (lid in his own name.
Q. Do you know whether  the one hundred shares wilhich stood in tlhe
name of Neilson ever received its fifty shares, to which it was entitled fA. I do not.
Q. Do you know that these fifty shares which you say Mr. Brooks subsequently received was not the fifty shares he was- entitled to by tllis
arrangeinent?-A. I do not say anything of that kind at all. I only




74                         CREDIT MOBILIER.
know this, that if he had a right to it he had no occasion to beg Mr.
Alley to let him  have it.  He could have got it by demanding it without putting himself under obligations to anybody.
By 31r. ALLEY:
Q. You state that 1Ir. Brooks was at that time either a director or
saidl he would have himself made a Government director.  Now, if he
was Government director at that time, what was the necessity of making himself so "?-A. That Mir. Brooks can better explain than I ca n.
By NMr. BANKis:
Q. The idea is that you are not s-ure whether he said he was a Governmelnt director -or would have himself made one?2-A. Yes, sir; I know
-there was'a good deal of trouble at that time as to who should be ap.
pointed.  M3r. Ames wrote me a letter wanting to have a certain gentle-.man appointed.  I wanted to have Senator Bayard appoiited.
By lJr. MOCGRAnY:
Q. Who is the 3Mr. Durant of whom  you speakl?-A. Thomas C.
Dnrant, who was president of the Credit Tiobilier, and was displaced
by these people.
Q. W~here is he now?-A. In New Yorkl   I think.   Jr. Durant to my
knowledge  hlad  taken proceedings or was abjout 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 M1Tr. Durant's office as prepared by Mlr. Traecy, his counsel.  Mr. Durant told me he had taken the
papers back, and included in them  Mr. Ames, withI 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, J3anuary 14, 1868.
My DEIAn St: I received this evening your letter of this (late informing me that Mr.
Ames, of Massachusetts, had one or two thousand dollars of stock in the Credit Mobilier 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 mwas indebted
for the subscription to what you tell me is "a good thing." I am, however, utterly in
the dark as to the nature and objects of this corporation, and you will oblige me if you
will give my son as much information as you have in relation to them.
I do not know Mr. Ames personally, and must wait, of course, till he addresses me,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 [ could not consistently
with my views of duty vote upon a question in which I had a pecuniary interest.
Whether I become the owner of this stock or not, I am obliged to you for your intention to benefit mre. As I must, of course, pay for any stock I get, please let my soIn
hlave full information as to its prospective value.
Your communication I conisider, as you have indicated, confidential, except as to
hlim, and he and I are almost one person.
Yours, very truly,
J. A. BAYARD.
II. S. Mlc4Co.:u, Esq.
WASHINGTON,   D. C., December 19, 1872.
JOHN B. ALLEY, having been duly sworn, made the following statement:
I wish to say first with regard to 3Mr. McComb's statement about my
agreeing to give Mr. Brooks fifty shares of the Credit Mobilier stockl 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




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        75
by MIr. MBcComb. I never gave nor sold a share of stock in the Credit
Mobilier to MIr. Brooks, or to any other member of Congress. I never
had any negotiations, or understanding, or talk with him or any other
member of Congress, with a view- to give him or sell him one single
share or any number of shares of the stock of the Credit Mobilier. I
do not know how I can better or more fully answer than by saying that
neither directly nor indirectly, in any way, shape, or manner did I ever
propose to give? or sell, or negotiate for or h:ave any understandifng
about? directly or indirectly, with Mr. Brooks or Mr. Neilson, by or
through him  or themn, or any other party or person whatever. As to
MN.r. Neilsoonr I do nrot know him. I inever saw him in my life, and never
had any converssation with anybody from him or through him, directly
or indirectly. There could not be a more thorough and entire fabrication from beginning to end than the statement of lMr. McComb.
B y the C IATIR AN:
Question. Right here, M3ir. Alley, let me ask you. in regard to the one
hundred shares of Credit. Mobilier stock, said to stand in the name of
Mr. Neilson on the books of the Credit Mobiliet; do you know anything
in reference to MIr. Brooks having any interest in that one hundred
shares of stock?-Answer. No. sir.
Q. Have you any informatioln upon that subject? —. None; except
what I have obtained since this investigation came up. I talkled with
I.r. 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 stockholder
of the Credit MIobilier.
Q. You never had any knowledge or belief that thrat 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 I
come to that I will explain what was my understanding.
Q. Suppose you state it right here. —A. It will come in more properly
at another point.
Q. So far as Mr. McComnb's testimony goes in any way to implicate
you, it was wholly about lMr. Brooks; a~nd the committee want to know
-11 you know, ani to hear all you waunt to say upon that subject. Please
state all you. know in reference to ownership in that company by MItr.
Brooks; whether he did or did not own any stock, and whatever lpassed
betxween him and you upon the subject.-A. I have no knowledge whatever o-f M]fr. Brooks ever owning one share of stock. Since this investigationl commenced, and the charges were made, I asked iMr. Brooks
what there was in ally way, shape, or manner that could have given
Mr. IMcComab any impression of that kind, or that I had anything to do
with giving any stock to him or to his son-in-law, Neilson.
Q. We do not ask you what Mr. Brook1s says about it. In all of your
connection with this company, as an officer or stockholder, have you
any knowledge of TIr. Brooks owning any of the stock of the company?-A. 1 have no knowledge whatever of his ever owning a share of
th&at stock, directly or indirectly; none whatever.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him about his becoming
ain owner of shares?-A. No. sir, never; not a word.
Q. Do you know anything in relation to any of these dealings between
MIr. Ames and any of the members of Congress, who have been named,
in relation to shares in this stockl —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 circumstanees of the case it would be not imnpossible, but exceedingly improb



76                       CREDIT  MIOBILIE. L.
able, that I should htave had anything to do with h im int any such con-_
1dential relations as this. MIr. MLcComb has very fully stated here that
at that time my relations to  JiMr. Brooks were of an antagonistic character. I was politically opposed to him, and I was opposed to him in
the management of the Unieon Pacific IiRailroad  Comlpany.   His views
did not correspond at all with mine.o H-e was1  i fitvo of MAr. iMcComb
and his party.   I did not feel ay con-idence ini their management.
Cons7equently I stood in such relations too M'r I-rooklS thait Icold not
have done anythincg of that kmnd with propriety.  Then, in addition to
that, let me sy that so tir fromn wantingl h im to be a Governmenit director, and giving him fifty shlares of stockI to induce hi  to becomne a
-overnment director,  I was opposutd to his bein1g appointed to that
position, and did all [could toprevent is bel. b   g appoinited. Iwas in fiavor
of another mcan, and for the reason solely that I hlave stated.  I think
Jir. Brooks is an able man, but lhe aid I did not coincide in our views in
regard to the nmanagemlent of the Union Pacific  ac tilroad Compalzy.
Alter M3-r.' Broolrs calne in as(  a Government director and found how
things werel he ascertained that my views and statelments in regard to
this man MicComb corresponded with his own, aifterward when he had
some experience as a memtner of the board.  of diirectors, and he frankly.told me so. Subsequent to that tinme, when he became a stock director,
I wcas in favor of his election as suche and he htas had no hesitation since
that time inl speaking of M3r. MtcComb about as I have done.  It was a
matter of notoriety that lir. McIComb's feelings toward me were as.
adverse as they could be. TI have nothing further to say oin that point
unless the conmmitee wish to ask mie further qmuestions.
(. If you know anything irn relation to any matters that have been.
spoken of here respectin' lMr. M Aimes or atny of those members of Congress, any one or all of the transactions referred to, you may state it. —A. I woruld like to go into the whole history of this Credit A[obilier
business.
lhe chairman stated that that v- wouilI be out,3ide the sphere of this invTestigation.
The WITNESS. Then I will js:t coniane myself  to a statement of facts
bearing upon this particular matter; but i am sorry the committee will
not allow mne to go into the whole history of the Credit lAobilier. I know
that when 3 r. Ames went into the Credit M/iobilier 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 circumlstances in connection with it
are rather peculiar, let mne go back a little and state that when the bill
was passed in 1864~, Mr. Ames was on the Pacific Railroad Committee.
You will remember that the feeling in the House in favor of a Pacifie
RSailroad was intense, when the effective provisions making it practicable
to build the Pacific Railroad became a law. In 1864, you will remermber
that nearly everybody was inl fa, vor of building the road on almost any
terms. M\1r. Lincoln, President of the United   States, with whom  I was
intimate, said a great dleal about it to me. He urged me to go for it.
id not like the provision in the bill about the lands,. and said to Mor.
nimes that I tlhouoght it was too good a grant altogether.  Mr. 3  Amles
remarked that he thought'it was none too good a bill. He said that
the comrmittee desired it very much, and everybody was in'favor of the
Pacific RIIailroad. He made this remark: "' You would not do such a
foolish thing as to put your money into it, even as good a bill ias it is.-'
I replied, "; No, I would not."  That bill was passed with the assents,  I
think, of every member of Congress fronm New England, and it received
almo-st the unanimous sanction of Congress. Everybody in all parts of




CIEDI)T.MOOLIEu::R.                     77'the eo.untry was in favor of it. Those who procured the p issage of this
bill thought the railroad under it should be put through. They went to
LNew 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 canme to the conclusion that they
-would rather lose what they had put in than to go further and risk their
all.. MIr. Ames ca, me to me in August, 1865, and said, " These gentlemen
have come on to see lme. 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 amu
willing to put in a large amount of money.?"  I said to Mr. Ames, " No
man nor body of men can build that railroad under that charter, with
-tese provisions in it, with scafety," pointing out the provisions in it to
which I referred; that it was an utter impossibility; that no sane man
would invest money in it, with the provisions to which I referred, which
was a requirement in the charter that the books should be kept open
until $1_00,000,000 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 filom being built. He replied,
"'I knolv that, because no-body of men will take that responsibility. It
involves the investment of at least 851,000,000, 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 everybody regarded it in tha.t light. I conversed with members of Congress
asbout it, and they aogreed with me. Whlen Mr. Ames suggested that he
wanted me to go in with him, and said he did so because he regarded
fme as a capitalist, (he was very much mistaken in that,) and said he
wanted my influence, my advice, and my assistance, he said, "I tell you
that it is a great thing. O   He put his hand down: on my desk in my
counting-room. I said, "It is a great thing'for the country, and I should
be glad if I could, with safety, be associated with you in putting the
enterprise through."  He observed, "'I believe it can be (lone, and I
am going to tell you how. It will be impossible to build it under the
provisions of that bill, but you can constiuct it by a contracting cosmpany, to which parties owning stock in the railroad can subscribe a limited amount and 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."7  He explained then in
regard to building  sections of the road, and how it could be don'e safeiy
bya corporationl. lie went on,'" I am willing to put in with my fiamily
a million dollars, and I want you to put in $503000. I want you to be
identified mwith us. It can be made a safe thing to do and a reasonable.amount of profit can be got out of it.'  His chief arg ument to me was of.a patriotic character. The plan at that time struck me as hardly feasible. I said I did not want to go into it; that it was outside my line of
business. le observed, "I want, very much your influence, as well as
your money. We shall want pecuniary aid, and there is every consideration with me why we want 2you to go in.l
By Mr. NIBLACK:
Q. And did you go in?  We desire you to ma-ke this general statement as short as you can.-A. I will not say another word on that Subject. You will remember that this is a matter of very great importaltce
to a very dear friend of mine, and therefore I desire to state very fully.
We went into the Credit Mobilier; I put in $50,00}0 under Mr. Ames's per



78                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
suasion; he persuaded a great many of us to go in in the same, way;
among others, Senator Grimes and Mr. looper, 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 corruption in it. After the election of directors of the Credit Mobilier woe
went to New 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, IB, C. I do not think he mentioned
any namnes to me. Perhaps he did anl perlhaps he did not. If so, I have
forgotten. He said he held them in trust.  W~e told him he nust either'
pay the m.oney for it, or the gentlemen for whom it was held must pay
it. He rather declined. We told him that it must ble put in-to different
foirm  then; that it did not stand properly on the books. After considerable talking he transferred it to the company, and it was placed in the
name of Mr. ])illon, 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.
Dur'ant would fulfill his pro'mise to give it to the men whom he pretended to be carrying it for. They were not ready, as he said, to take
it then. So it was carried along. It was very difficult to sell it; there,
was not much call for it. M1r. Amles had great faith in it, and believed it;
was a very great thing. When we were put in control and MTr. Durant
was turned out, there was fa; great controversy and a great de al of illfeeling, and, as you may say, a fight over the whole thing. Mr'. Durant
ano4d his party said the Crediet lfobilier  should never have ainother contract. 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 connected with the road supposed that the Credit Mobilier would keep on
as it had begun, as the contracting party to build the roadi but Mr.
IDurant said no. His feelings were enlisted; his pride and everything'
forbade it. He and his party tried, until there was an election in the
fal, 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 concerned 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 heavyT load on his shoulders. He fe.lt that he 1ad
a big enterprise, and he was soliciting men from every quarter to come:
in. Finally, lie 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 build 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 he 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'lmoney 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, I 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 MOBILIER.                        7
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. Amies had offered to guarantee it in the
way I have stated. I told him he could not afiord to lose anything, but
that if Mr. Ames had guaranteed it it would be perfectly safe, of course,
and I did not see why he should have any hesitation.  He replied,.
4 No; I shall take it."  I supposed he did. I heard nothing about
it for some time, nntil he came to me -and wanted to know what
this thingI meant about the MicComb suit at Philadelphia. He said
that somebody had sent him a pamphlet in which there were charges
of corruptionl bribery, &c., made against Ames by this man  IcCaomb.
I said to him, "TYou know  who McComb is?1   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 up 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 company. 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 bonacfide transaction. It was bought with her own mone1y.
as I myself knew, because a sum had beeni nmade up by  [r. Ames, nmy —
self; and many other friends as a present to MAArs. Wils on, on the occasion
of their silver wedding. Afterward I saw 3Ir. Ames, who told me about
-what Wilson had done. I told him I did not see ajny use in. his givingit back; still if he chose to give up what honestly belonged to him, it
was not for him to object. I remember using this illustiration with Mr.
Wilson: said I,;; You say you have no belief wha tever in these charges
that Mir. Ames acted improperly in any way." iS - e said no; that he offered hiim the stock, he knew, only to benefit him, (WVilson.) Then, said I,.
" Have you not the courage to keep that stock? Would you get friightened.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 lo not know but you are right; but I do not walt even a breath
of suspicion against me. You know that if there is a ma!ln who is pure
in regard to these things, it is myself. I am as poor as a rat, and alw ays.
want to be, rather than have even a suspicion that I or my wife have
made a thousand dollars out of a transaction wrongfully. What is that
to me? I want it all takeil back. I cdo 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.77
Q. Please get on as rapidly as possible. As you understood, the moneywas paid back to Mr. Wilson or Mrs. Wilson   Ars. iI have understood
so since. I never heard any more about it till the charge was nmade in:
the newspapers this last fall. Then he told mei that it was all paid back,
and I suppose it was paid at the tinle.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. How long was Mrs. W~ilson 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 M/[r. Dawes. Mr. Dawes came. to Ime and
said he had been talking with Mr. Ames about the Credit Mobilier. He'saiid 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 themr,.
I thinak, to Governor Wrashburn. He said that he had been told that.
I was a director of this Credit BMobilier, 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 tallked.




- 0                      CIREDIT MOBILIER.
to me sometimes about his investments,  which was very natural, as I
was his colleague. TWhen he came to me he said that he went to Mr.
Ames to buy this bond; that Ar. Ames had said he had none he could let
him ha ve, but that he could give him something better than that, and
that he then told him  about the Credit Mobilier; that he asked Mr.
XAmes if he thought it was a good thing, aild Mr. Ames replied it was,
and that 2dMr. Alley could tell him all about it; that Ait. Ames had remarked that if he was not entirely satisfied with it he could bring it
back and he would give himl the money at any time. I told MIr. 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 liim, and
that he was going to have a lawsuit about it, and was going to oust Ames,
Allhy, and all of us. He said to me, " What does it mean?" 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
ma::m:7s 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 3Mr. Dawes told me that he at that time gave it back to Mr. Ames,
and he was vewy glad he did so, because of this fuss. I mentioned it
to M3r. Aimes, who toldn me that'it was so. This was all there was of that,case.
Then another colleague of raine, Mr. Boutwell, spolke to lme. What
he said to me precisely I do not remember.  I understood that he
agreed to take ten shares of the Credit Mbobilier stock, and asked nme
abont it. I told him wlhat I had told Mr. Dawes and Mr. Wilson. He
said he thought it was a very good thing. I said I did not think as
wTell of it as Mlr. Ames; but as he is very confident, and as he offered
to return you your money if you are not sastisfied, I should, recommend
i.t to yon. 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
blie has, and think I shall take ten slhiares of it.". I heard no imore about
-that till this talk in the newspapers, when I asked Mr. Ames in regard
-to iu, an d he told me that Mr. BJutwell never had any of the stock; that
he nlever took it; that for some reason, he did not know what, he never
had hclad anything to do with it. There was nothing strange in Mr.
Boutwell lcoming to Mr. Ames and to me to talk about investments in a
sinall way. He is a man of mnoderate property, and thrifty in his managemerlt of it. iHe 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 ca,nme one day and
told rme tlat Mr. Ames had been talking to him about the Credit Mobilier, and he askled 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 partiunJlaly. I do not know about his case, only that he told me he was going
to takce sorme or that Mr. Amies had agreed to let him have somne of the
stock. YWhetlher he took it or not I did not know until tUhis affair canme
out, when I went to Mr. Ames about it, and hte  said LMr. Seofield did
take some. I believe these are all the eases of members of Congress I
know anything about.
Without finishing the examinlation of' th is wittness  the committee adjourner d till Janulary 7 1873, at 10 a. nm.




C(REDIT MOBILIER.                       81
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 7, 1873.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present except Mr. Banks.
The chairman stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Banks
notifying him that it would be impossible for him to be present for several days.
The following resolution of the -House of Representatives was laid
before the committee:
FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION.
CONGRESS OF' THE UNITED STATES,
Int the Houtse of Re1presentatives, Jainuary 6, 1873.
Onl motion of Mr. FRYE,
Resolved, That the committee of this House appointed to investigate charges of corruption in the matter of stock in the Credit Mobilier be, and they are hereby, instructed
to continue such investigation Mwithout secrecy as to either their past or future proceedings; and that the testimony hitherto taken be made pnblic.
Attest:
E. McPHERSON, Cleric.
SCI-IUYLER COLFAX, Vice-President of the United States, appeared,
and, having been daly sworn, made the following statement:
I should like, if I may be permitted, to make a full statement of the
whole matter so far as my 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 anm about now to read
was written immediately after my informal appearance before the committee on the 16th of December last, and it is therefore entirely unaffected 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 paid me a dollar, or the
value of a dollar, on any accounllt 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 Iind 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 ever 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 iemotely, or to use any personal or official influence in their favor.
I desire, however, to state all the circumstances through which probably my name came to be associated with this organization.
Five years ago, about the time of the holiday recess, I was conversing
6 x




82                        CREDIT MOBILIER.
on the floor of the House with Mr. Ames in regard to the Pacific IUailroad, 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 solme stock in the Credit Mobilier. 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 Railroad,
who were themselves building the road instead of letting it out to contractors, who always expected large profits for their risk and their advances of money for supplies. I told him after his'explanation that it
looked like a good and safe investment for one of limited means, 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 inonths 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 remunerative.
The Union Pacific Railroad 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 lien
had been enacted in 1864, over three years before this conversation.
Inferring that any questions arising under their charter would be judicially 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 Congress? or in a manufaictory, 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. MIy 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 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 induce me to buy into a lawsuit; that I
had never, been, during all my life, a plaintiff or a defendant in a
court of justice; 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 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 consequence, as was said, of financial involvements connected with the
Pacific Railroad, and his creditors gave him an extension on his liabilities. But, regretting his failure and its cause, I voluntarily told him to




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      83
dlisriss from his mind the small amount of money between us. I suppose, 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
in4bonds, 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 CllAIR.iAN:
Q. 1I may, perhaps, inquire whether you havpe any knowledge of ownership of stock in the Credit AIobilier by any member of Congress?-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 building the Pacific
IRailroad, and I asked him how the road was progressing, how it was
being pushed into the interior, and out of that inquiry grew this conversation 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 Ml1obilier by members of Coln-gress at all except through the
newrspapers.
By MiAr. MER RICK:
Q. Have you any knowledge of the relations between the Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Railroad Company? —A. -No, sir; except so
far as iMr. Ames and these conversations explained them to me. I had
heard of the Credit ilobilier and of the Credit Foucier, as connected
with the Union Pacific Railroad. I had known of them because persons 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 Railroad 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 reputation 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. Whau I understood to be the object of the Credit
Mobilier was to build the road within the subsidy proffers of the. Government.
Q. Then you understood that the stockholders and officers. of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company were to contract with themselves as
stockholders and contractors to build the road, and derive for themselves 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, I 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 oxiginal




84                      CREDIT  IOBILIER.
stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad, having so often urged 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 would charge proportionate 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 Railroad
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 contract with themselves to build the road  -A. I do not 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: I had heard of railroads being built and the contractors
paid in bonds furnished them at the low figures 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 desire to build the road within the limits of the proffir made by the Government. 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 I have said, undertake to decide questions of ethics or law as to others, and on matters 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 me,
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 plresent, should cross-examine
me now on any point that occurs to them.
[Both these gentlemen, being in vited by the chairman to do so, replied
that they had no questions to propound to Mr. Colfax.]
W~ASHINGTON, ID. C., Janacry 7, 187 3.
Examination of JOHN B. ALLEY resumied:
Before resuming my testimony proper, I wish to make to the committee 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 connected with these charges.
It is hard for men who feel conscious, not only of deserving no cenisure,
but, on the contrary, meriting great praise, to have their names inscribed
upon the enduring records of the nation as guilty of purposes which,
if true, should consign them to eternal infamy, without having the op



CREDIT MOBILIER.                        85
portunity to showT  in the fullest manner possible, every act and circumlstance 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 entire history of the Credit Mobilier and its whole connection with the
Union Pacific Railroad Company, I shall exhibit, I amn sorry to say, a
sad and sorrowvful record, but one in no way discreditable to that corporation or any of its managers, and which will, I feel certain, leave no
impression on the public imind prejudicial to any member of the present
House of Representatives, however it may affect others.
I am here not only at yonr request, but at the earnest solicitation of
one of the most emninent 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
PMobilier and Union Pacific IRailroad Company. He said to me, "'You
know as well as myself all the facts in connection with these corporation s, and reember them with lnore distinctness than any one." "And,'
said he further, "you and I know Mr. Ames to be a perfectly honest
man; therefore I thinlk 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 people could know all the facts, instead 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 camne lere simply as a witness, havin g been'for several years out of
the direction of the Credit AIobilier, and for a long time out of' the
Union Pacific Railroad Company. I have verylittle interest in either.
I do not lhold a single bond of any of their securities, and but a trifling
amount of stocIl. I did not dream of any one charging me, or supposing I had ever bought, or soldl, or given a share of Credit Mobilier stock
to any member or mnembers 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 Congress.
Imagine nmy astofnishment, coming here as a witness, and finding myself charged with yielding to the entreaty of James Brooks, and consenting 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 relation 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 Railroad. I did not know  it;
but I do know that the fact is otherwise. The Credit Mobilier elid not
build but two hundred and forty-seven miles of the Union Pacific Railroad, and that was the first two hundred and forty-seven. The last:
eight hundred miles were built by other contracltors, and the Credit
MIobilier had nothing to cldo with it, directly or indiirectly, except in guaranteeing a contract. The Credit Mobilier never made a dollar out of the
Union Pacific Railroad. The Credit Mobilier has not paid 7 per. cent.
on its capital, and its stock is not low, and has not been fora 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, swvindled, and outraged more than
any corporation I have ever heard of. But for the honesty and sense
of justice of Oakes Ames, who, with rare magnanimity, (consideringthe




86! CREDIT MOBILIEIR.
treatment which he had received at that time fronm 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
upon 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 before 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 securities I have ever received on account of it, and know what I have made,
and my books show $93,456. This was 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 losses occasioned by plundering, cheating, and mismanagement, were borne directly or indirectly by the stockholders of the
Credit M~obilier and the Union Pacific Railroad. The Government has
not been wronged or cheated in any way that I aml aware of. It has got
all that it required, and all that was agreed to-a first-class road, thoroughly equipped. The Government has been well treated, thanks to the
Ameses and their friends, and has got all that belongs to it. It made a
better bargain and got more benefit than any other party or party or parties. It
has the second lien upon the road for the loan of its credit, and the security is good.
I shall now submit my testimony in detail, alnd I hope without interruption, willing, then, to submit to any cross-examnination, however
searching, by the committee or any one else. Although somUe of it
may appear irrelevant as I go along, I thinkl you will find, when
through, that I could have omitted nothing and given a proper understanding of the case, or said less in justice to Mr. Ames and all those
members of Congress who are implicated with him in these charges of
corruption and fraud; every fact I shall state and every declaration 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 Railroad, both being managed by the same
parties, Mr. Thomas C. Durant, (with Mir. McComb, director in the
Pacific Railroad Company, as coadjutor and friend,) as president of the
Credit NMobilier and vice-president of the Union Pacific Railroad Comrnpany, 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 completed to his and their satisfaction-; Mr




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     87
Ames always contending that his 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 inl 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 indispensably necessary (in fact self-preservation required it at that time) that
they should get rid of Durant and company. 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 highest character and respectability, three of whom were appointed on the
executive committee. Mr. Sidney Dillon was elected president; Mr.
Rowland G. Hazard, of Rhode Island, a distinguished and wealthy citizen of that State, and myself, together with the president, constituted
the executive committee, upon whom  devolved chiefly the administration of the corporation. Inmediately upon being installed into office,
we discovered great irregularities. Enormons amounts of money had
been used for purposes which we could not discover, called, I believe, a
secret fund. We also found 650 shares of stock standing in the name
of Thomas C. Durant, the circumstances of which I have already related. 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 Mobilier; but Mr. Durant and his friends declared that the Credit Mobilier
should never have another contract of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. He and McComb andl their associates in the board of direction in
Union Pacific Railroad Company had sufficient 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 dissensions 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 lie 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 Railroad Company; other than that there were no conditions, and he would make no pledges. In reply to their solicitations he
would only say,':l 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 know 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, and every




88                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
individual member of that corporation shall be offered the opportunity of taking an interest in that contract, in pro rata proportion
to his ownership 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 agreements, and they all became individuawlly liable for the whole amount. That was agreed to by all parties. When 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 immense
sum more than should have been, which went into the pocket' of somebody 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 Blobilier
and the Union Pacific Railroad Company; how, much to each I do not
know; which was the only explanation ever obtained respecting this
enormous deficiency. McComb, in his testimony before the court in
-Pennsylvania, says that Mr. Alley denounced Mr. Durant and called
him dishonest, and told him (McComb) 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. IMy recollection
is that no one but McComb was entirely satisfied, and Rowland G. Hazard, one of the miost 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 embezzlemient 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 expenditure so far. as one individual was concerned, and with him he had quarreled. That man was Thaddeus Stevens. He declared that he had
paid him  $80,000 in a roundabout way for getting bills through
Congress.  He refused to reveal the name of any other mTember.  McComnb was satisfied with his explanation, but Mr. Ames
and myself were not, and I believe all our honest associates were
entirely convinced, after that attempt of Fiskl, 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 Acheme 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. WVe certainly should not have sanctioned it if it
had been true, and we were not going by iany means to allow it when
we believed it false. Every circumstance within our knowledge forbids its belief: our opinion of Mr. Stevens, and the fact that at that
time everybody almost of all parties, in Congress anld 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 capitalistA 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 onefourth 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 MOBILIER.                            89
friom its rightful owners the Union Pacific Railroad, and throw out these
m:en who had invested their millions in it in good faith, without Fisk,
Durant, or McComb investing an additional dollar in it, except, perhaps,
$140, which Fisk invested. But their machinations and intrigues did
not succeed. In order, however, to fully thwart them, we had to raise
the enormous sunm of $15,000,000 in a single day.  Jim Fisk, McComb,
and Durant came to grief in this attempt, and the result was Durant,
ceCornb, and friends were put out of the direction.  Some of them
were finally re-instated upon a compromise, and this contract of Oakes
Ames for the benefit of the stockholders of the Credit M1iobilier as I
have described went into effeet.  I was one of the trustees, at the
earnest solicitation of Mr. Ames, of this contract.  I served two or three
nonths, when to the great joy of Durant and McCo0mb, 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 1868, Jesse L, Williams, a Government
director and an honest man, ever watcbful of the interests of the Government, 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 Government 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 lineof the
road upon Mr. Durant, the vice-president, amenable only to the executive 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 company.  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, July'25, 1868.
DEAR SIR: I have been reflecting upon the resolution passed by the executive committee, and the action and evident purpose of some of our directors, and I must say
that, dissatisfied and uneasy as you and others know I have been ever since I have been
engaged with the road, I have never known anything in the action of these men that
has alarmed me more than their present course. If our associates had been all of them
like you and your brother, disposed and desirous to do right and doing justice to the
stockholders and the Government,, we should not now have been troubled with the injunctions 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 compromising your character by any longer acquiescing in their machinations and wrongdoing. I feel that we have a trust confided to us which, as honorable men, we are
bound to administer in the interests of the stockholders, the Government, and the
American people. The Government has been liberal and generous, and is entitled to




9()                        CREDIT MOBILIER.
protection in all its rights. We can afford and ought to give them a first-class road.
I know that you are as strongly in flavor of that as I am, and that you have always
been.
We made strong pledges, and so did our chief engineer, General Dodge, to Mr.
Williams, that no stone should be' left unturned to accomplish that end, and by no
vote or act of ours should anything be countenanced looking to any 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 engineer subordinate and insulted because he is fearless and honest and wishes to protect
the rights of all; your authority very much impaired and crippled-in fact almost destroyed 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 in proceedings that I
did not always like for the sake of peace, Yet notwithstanding, I have made myself
odious and hated, almost beyond endurance, because I have stood up boldly and persistently 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 bo.th have endeavored to do right and countenance no wrong; but just as
sure as we acquiesce and help these people to carry out their designs 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 in the money we get to induce me to do
what my judgment and conscience condemn. Now, Mr. Ames, I advise you, ais a friend,
and I earnestly implore you by every consideration of justice asnd right, and in
behalf of your own honor and that of ourselves, to resist, by all the power which you
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 beneficent Government
trampled upon, then I must enter my solemn protest; and if such a state of things
must continue, then let me retire froml the contest.
Yours, truly,
JOHN B. ALLEY.
H]on. Or,v.,ni AMES,
PIresident of the lUnion Pacific Railroad Cormpany.
Wve fbound six hundred and fifty shares of stock, as I have before mentioned, 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 stockl of tha't company would be very valuable, and he urged his
acquaintances to buy who had capital, power, or influence, as he had
done from the time of his first connection with the enterprise.  Probably 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 fiiends to
purchase some of that stock.
After the matter was compromised and Mr. Ames had  made the
proposition to offer an interest in 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 marketable value at
$160 up to $200 almost immediately.  MIr. Ames found himself somewhat embarrassed from having promised a great deal1 more stock than
the company could issue.  He and Mr. Durant had promised some seventy or eighty thousand dollars of stoclk, 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 thlink,
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 engagements 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 MOBILIER.                        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 recognized and confirmed as Mr. Durant or Mr. Ames. On the other hand.
it was contended that Mr. McComb had no right whatever to promise any stock; that he hbad never interested himself in its sale, and
I think the company had  also no confidence in his representations, and they declined to issue to him  anlly 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. Fowler, 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
agreed upon, the President refused to issue any of th6 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 gentlemen, including Mr. McComb, joined in a written request to Mr. Dillon to
issue this stockl to Messrs. Durant and Ames, as had been agreed upon.
Some time afterward, I think only a fiew days, 5Mr. 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 fiaudulent that, in presenting it, he had shown himself 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 colpany if the claim was not allowed. He proposed, 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. MIr. McComb persisted 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 Mir. Ames belonged to him, and in his bill he set forth that this stock was taken
from him and distributed to members of Congress, without consideration, for corrupt and fraudulent purposes.
That bill was answered by the officers 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 finding Mr. Ames and the company determined not to be black-mailed, he
then resorted to threats of a little different character. He said that he
had letters from  ir. 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 occasion. I told him I did not. believe a word of it, and I would not believe




92                     CREDIT AMOBILIER.
anything that McConmb should state. I knew of my own knowledge that
no stock had been given away to anybody. That much was false I knew.
If lihe would say that he had seen the letters, and they were such as
he described, I should feel- that it might be possible that it was
partially true; still it was so contrary to everything that I knew of
M3r. Atnes that I could not and I did not believe a word of it. Judge
Black told me that althoulgh he 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 corporation, 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
hlimself must rest the consequences. I certainly should not shield hin
in any such business as that. Again he camle to me and re-assured me
that the letters were as he described. I told him that it was a blackmailing affhir, and that the claim itself had no foundation in law, equity,
or justice, and he knew it as well as I did; and he knew he had for his
client an. infamous scoundrel; and no man could know OGakes Ames as
he did without feeling that he was a perfectly honest man. "Wetlly
said hle, " if you do not convey to Mfr. Ames what I say, you will be 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. They agreed with me that it wa:s a story impossible to believe of
Mlr. Ames; that it was an attempt to black-mnail the company and Mr.
Ames, in which Judge Black was lending his aid, and under no circum-nstances would they consent to reference or compromise. When MIvr.
Ames was told what they saidl, lhe said to me and the executive committee that he had written no such letters; that it was impossible he
could have written such letters, for the reasons that if he had there
would not have been a word of truth in them; that he had never given
a member of Congress a share of stock; that hlie 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 McComb 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, Boumtwell, and Wilson were among then, also Mr. Garfield. He
should be very sorry, he said, to expose Mr. Garfield, who was a particular
fiend of his. He said it would be found that these gentlemen and several 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
deemrn 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 fior Congressmen to own bankstock. 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-nail youlr comnpany 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-nailer. I told them, as I told the
judge, I thon-ught his judrgment was entirely blinded by his prejudice




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     93
against Aimes, and that his client had grossly deceived him as to the
facts.
Mr. Ames speaks in his letters to McComb rather complainingly 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.
I was opposed to any such 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, I
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 Massachusetts folks. Mr. Ames always disclaimed any such purpose, or
having any sectional feeling; I 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 iniluence 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 design; he knew what MIcComb was firom mie a long time before those
letters were written.
I met McComb, for the first time, when I weint 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 tradeas worthy as he is distinguished, and well known, I suppose, to the
committee. He told me that he thought that he 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 Railroad, as he had some fiends 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 interest. 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 McComb in its
direction. Mr. Shultz asked what he knew against McComb; he said
he regarded him as the most intfinous scoundrel he knew, and that he
ought t'o be in the penitentiary instead of the direction of that company. Hle had robbed and cheated the soldiers and the Government
more than anybody could dream of, and the archives of the Government would show it. Hee said he had discovered his infamy when he
was Assistant Secretary of War.  Mir.l 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 MIOBILIER.
to me and wanted to know what we had that infamous wretch McComb
as a director for. I asked what he knew about McComb. His reply
was, "He ought 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." lThis information was given to Mr. Ames, so that it was impossible 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
3Mobilier 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 always
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 individuals engaged in it. I knew Durant to carry his threats so far once
as to write a letter and put it in the post-office, directed to Elihn B.
WVashburne, accusing the companies of the greatest rascalities. Htad
this letter gone forwardl, *you can realize the consequences.  They
found they had gone a little too fear, 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. Oakes Ames always claimed,
I believe, that they had nothing to fear from investigations, and I cannot 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 blackmailing suit of McComb, which was comlienced more than four years ago,
beginning his suit with a false but sworn statement that the Credit AMobilier had beenl 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, gentlemen of unusual high character and probity; and they defy any humaun
being to show aly wrong-doing by that corporation or any member of it
Loward Congress or the Government since they have been in charge oi'
its administration, since the 19th May, 1867, to the present time. It (the
McComb suit) has been the cause of great persecution, numberless lavwsuits, 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 McComub hafd
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 ridiculous 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.




CRmEDIT MOBILIER.                     95
A Pennsylvania jury, reluctant to let such a large sum slip, seemed 1nwilling 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'Company. 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 albsurd
rullings; then thie case was dismissed, but a few months since. At last
there comes now, growing out of the same false swearing, an arraignment 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 personal 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, especially when you consider that all required legislation, affecting in any
way the interests of the road, had been obtained three years or more
before, itf you except perhaps one bill passed in 1866, which was not,
however, in the interest of the Union Pacific Railroad, but against it, fobr
which'IMr. Ames himself voted, and when denounced for it by MIr. Durant 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, anda
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 nan who would have done the same. For all this
peril, anxiety, and abuse, he has 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 fiom 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 I
would relieve him of his load and agree to hold himn harmless.  And
how much worse was his brother Oakes's case!
One of America's most distinguislhed 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 appreciate 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, culminlating' 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, Neilson, by me or Oakes Ames, were fifty
shares of stock, belonging by right to Neilson, as the owrner of a hundred 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 stockholders. 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 company'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 the circumstances in 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. McCoMn. Before the committee proceed with 3Ir. Alley's crossexamination, I wish they would allow me to say a word, and to inject it
right at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. 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. McCozin3. I simply want, inasmuch as this proceeding is public,
that the bane should go with the antidote.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been determined that the bane shall go first.
Examination by the CHAIRMAN:
WVe 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 Mnr. Ames speaks of in
his letter, and to which I was opposed.
Q. Do you understand that all these dividends were declared and
paidl 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 26, 1866, of 100 per cent. in
Union Pacific Railroad stock, is, I think, not correct. Neither is that
of April 1, 1867. That was not a dividend. The original capital of the
Credit TMobilier 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 marketvalue. A good many of theml were pledged in large sums, and large
sums 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?A. Yes, sir; it was not a dividend. The next dividend referred to here
is July 1, 1867, 100 per cent., Union Pacific Railroad stock. That was
not a dividend. My recollection of both these items is that the Credit
Mobilier had subscribed for stock of the company for which they were
to paiy $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. W~ho assumed the liability to pay the balance?-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 MOI3ILIER.                     97
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. Right here let me inquire in reference to the stock of the Union
Pacific Railroad 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 $100,000,000should
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 New
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 bill; 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. I 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 snbscribed?-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 millions, 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, although 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
Railroad 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
way 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 believe 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




9 8                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
1870, if they had sold all their securities, the profits would have been
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? -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 expedients 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 RIailroad Company stock, or in first-mortgage bonds of
the Union Pacific Railroad, 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 Railroad 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  I How
high did they sell?-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 beemi sold down as low as 60 odd. There has been great fluctuation 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? —A. I think they were
nearly up to par. Then there were certificates issued. I 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 ilobilier 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 declared 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 aprofit




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 thafi 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 Mobilier 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 Almes contract — 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 tliat contract waas 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 dividcends 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. W~ere these dividends declared upon the stock of the Credit Mobilier, 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 Mfobilier 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 contract.
Q. But I understandc you that the contract was assigned to certain
trustees. What I want to ask is whether the advantages of that contract were not really in the shape of dividends upon the Credit Mobiher 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.
Q. Was it confined to them?-A. Yes; confined entirely, with one
or two exceptions. W~here 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 included in the trustees' arrangemetlt — 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; but as one of the trustees I acqui.
esced in what was done.
Q. The division was made according to this stipulation in the assignment of the Ames contract to the trustees?-A. Yes; it is there stipulated
that they should sign an agreement to give up their proxies in the Union
Pacific Railroad. They all became liable personally for the whole
amount. The stockholders in the Credit M3obilier were really losers in
this venture of theirs in the Union Pacific Railroad. 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 ii;, for par and interest, and give something besides. I will mine,
at any rate.
Mr. MCCOx3B. I will take your stock on those terms.
By Mr. MIE-tRRICK:
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 C mAIR-MAN:
Q. W~~hat you mean, then, is, that taking the Credit Mobilier stock,
without participation in the Ames contracts you would not make anything — 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 e —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 1Mr. NIBLACK:
Q. Is the Union Pacific Railroad Company substantially controlled
by the same men who built it ~?-A. I should hardly think it was. A1Rr.
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 M3obilier at the present time, and for three or four years past, who are now controlling the
Union Pacific Railroad? —A. No, sir. They have scarcely anything to
do with the Union Pacific Railroad. Mr. Hazard is on the executive
committee, and M3r. Dillon is president of the Credit Mobilier. I believe
Mr. Dillon is a director of the Union Pacific Railroad. I think he has
a small interest in it, and if I am not mistaken Mar. Hazard has no
interest in the Union Pacific Railroad 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 company.-A. No, sir. I think the directors of the Credit M[obilier have
scarcely any interest in the Union Pacific Railroad. I do not know of
but one who is in the direction, and he is Air. 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 Railroad
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 thelargest stockholders in the Credit Mobilier, as I understand,
do not own much stock in the Union Pacific Railroad. I own, as I have
stated, 290 shares of the Credit Mobilier stock, but I own a very small
amount, indeed, of Union Pacific Railroad stock, and scarcely any of
their securities. I have not been in the direction for several 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 who own
it.? —A. There are three classes of bonds. The first-mortgage bonds,
$27,000,000, I think; the land-grant bonds, reduced, I believe, to about
$9,000,000, and the income-bonds of $10,000,000 —I should say about
$46,000,000 altogether. The road is running just enough to pay the interest on these securities from its net proceeds. The Governmenlt bonds
are not included in this calculation. They are provided for in another
way.
Q. In your statement you say that Mr. Durant a~nd 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 Railroad Company will ever be able to redeem.the bonds the Governnient 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 Congress 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 mny 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 managemeiit 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 coinpany, without making any particular provision for redeeming them.-A.
I do not think any Government bonds were ever divided to the contractors.  The road cost too much. It was badly managed in its construction. The road actually cost about $69,0000,000, 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 Railroad?-A. I have never had any connection with it.
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 8s 1873.
Examination of JOHN B. ALLEY resumed.
[By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. You saw what 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
M3obilier, and whether these profits were divided among the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier?- Answer. I believe it does.




102                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. As I understand,'whatever 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 fromn 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 stipulation; 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 — 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 shar'eholders, 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 td 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 Miobilier
shares in December, 1867, and January, 1868? —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 tihe 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 entled 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 conle in as another?-A.
0, 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 (lay 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
name of Mr. Neilson. Do you know Mr. Neilson?-A. I do not. I never
saw hilm.
Q. He is said to be the son-in-law of Mr. Brboks?-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.




CIREDIT MOBILIER.                      103
Q. You have 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 Neilson had?-A. None whatever. I never knew anything about it or heard
anything about it until the other dlay.
Q. flave you any personal knowledge as to who paid for the fifty shares
that Neilson had? —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 presume it was paid by Neilson. I happened to be away at
the timea 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 t?-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 nothing to the contrary. I never had any conversation with Mr. Brooks,
and I never knew Neilson. A.s I said before, I never knew anything
about this stock. It came, as I understood, from 3Mr. Durant. I can tell
you what Durant told me if you desire it. I know nothing of my own
personal knowledge.
By Mr. MERRICK:           /
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?
-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. Mir. 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 I stated fully
then all I knew in regard to them.
By Mr. M3cCRARY:
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 IMr. 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 regard 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 investigation, and since then I have been informed from the same sources of'
information you all have.




1 04                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. How much 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 I)ar, 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 January, 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 forward 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 Deicember. I aml 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?-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 madle 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 respect to the Union Pacific Railroad stock I am confident that not more
than two-thirds of it stands in the name of the parties who really
own1 it.
By Mr. MIERRTCK:
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 MIr. 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 MOBILIER.                      105
it put in his name as trustee. I do not know of any other reason, and I
do not suppose there was any other reason than that. I, hlowever, 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 f-A. I do not know; I
understood from the testimony here that he gave in some instances a
receipt 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. however, 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 lhe 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. McCRnAy:
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 sixtyeight 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 completed. They found when they came to finish it they were very deeply
involved, and they had to raise a good many millions. Mr. Ames himself furnished quite a number of millions in the way of taking securities,
&c., and I suppose it is well known 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 Railroad stock, and also of the Credit Mobilier as depending very much upon the friendly or unfriendly legislation of Congress 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 Railroad 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.
Ir. Ames or his brother have parted with any considerable portion of
their stock in the road.
Q. You 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 I 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 firom New York to Boston.? —A. Of course. Judge Barnard
had granted an injunction, and Fisk seemed to have full control of his
court.  Fisk came to me the very day the injunction was put on and
said, " I will agree to settle this thing for $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 concern 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." Il
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 understand you to say that the Union Pacific Itailroad
Company was largely interested in the bill providing for the removal of
its office to Boston  — A. The Union Pacific Railroad Company I think
felt that it was a matter of life and death to them to get out of the
clutches of the corrupt New York courts.
Q. Would you, then, or not, regard a member of Congress who had
stock in that company 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 certainly shown that it was impossible for property or life even to be very
safe in the 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. I was present at the
time and know that Oliver Ames never lifted a finger. The monent 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? —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 anticipating any such proceeding certainly would not augur any impropriety in
voting for the measure, as I regard it. There may be difference of opin



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 Railroad office to Boston, and do not
know whether any member interested voted upon it or not.
Q. What was the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the payment of interest on the bonds of the United States granted
to the Union Pacific Railroad Company?-A. His decision was, I think,
that all the Pacific Railroad companies should pay interest upon the
bonds that were loaned to them. That is my impression.
Q. Did the Union Pacific Railroad Company pay in accordance with
that decision — A. They did not. They carne 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 conclusion.
Q. You regarded that as an important subject oi congressional legislation, for the interest of the company, did you not? —A. I 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 considered it.
Q. If you had been a member at the time this actwas passed in reference to the payment of interest, would you have regarded it as a question 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 under your control, a hundred thousand dollars in money after Secretary
Boutwell's ruling in reference to the interest due on the Union Pacific
Railroad 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 investigation 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. 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.
Q. You 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?A. No, sir; 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. MERRICK:
Q. It has been stated that the Union Pacific Railroad cost altogether
sixty eight or sixty-nine millions. WVhat was the length of that road?A. I think one thousand and fifty or one thousand and eighty miles;
speakin g from recollection.
Q. WThen you give the amount stated as the cost of the road, do you




108                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
include the cost of construction 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?-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 $54,000,000 or $55,000,000, to say the least.
My statement of the cost of coarse includes the profit which was made
on the contract with Mr. Ames.
Q. Do or not the books of the company show what has been the
actual expenditure for construction — A. I presume so; they 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, because there was necessarily an enormous expense attending the construction of the first two or three hundred miles. There were no railroads across the State of Iowa, and the rails had to be carried across or
sent around up the river at a monstrous expense. There 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 fearful. }For instance, ties were made to cost $5 apiece which should not
have cost but forty cents. But the Government never was robbed or
cheated; it was the parties who undertook to build the 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 MAobilier 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 divilends 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. NIBLACIK:
Q. I understood you to state yesterday that there were two classes of
stockholders in this Credit AMobilier, one interested in the Ames contract 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 corporn:tion never made a dollar out
of the Union Pacific Railroad 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



CREDIT MOBILIER.                    109
tributed among his friends, by allowing them 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 permitted by Mr. Ames to become interested in his contract in pro 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. MERR.ICK:
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 construction 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?-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.
WVASINGTON, D. C., January 9, 1873.
Examination of S. M. McCo3In 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 MIr. Ham, present before calling other witnesses, and unless
Mr. McComb was prepared to produce other papers to which he had referred in his previous evidence and to give further testimony, the committee would adjourn until Monday.
Mr. McCoMi 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 developments should render any further statement necessary, he would be glad
to avail himself of the permission of the committee.
Mr. MERRICK. You stated that you had other papers you could produce.
Mr. McCoMB. I have, and, if the committee wish, will produce them
now. WVhen 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 MOBILIER.
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 occurred 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 difficulty 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 conversation occurred, you may state it. —A. No, sir; I have not. It was in
his absence. The whole thing impressed itself upon imy 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
820,000 of Union Pacific Railroad 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 referred 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 Railroad 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 transaction in December you speak of, have you any personal knowledge; were
you present, or is it something you h-ave learned from others?-A. I was
in the office when Mr. Brooks and Mr. Durant were talking. This conversation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Durant occurred subsequent to
my signing the paper which these gentlemen presented. I heard the
conversation with reference to Mlr. Durant giving or selling Mr. Brooks
the one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock.
By Mr. MCcRARY:
Q. TWhat do you know personally about Mr. Brooks paying for it;
and how do you know it e-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.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      111
By Mr. MERRICK:
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?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 books
of the Credit Mobilier.
Q. Was this the general stock of the Credit Mobilier that Mr. Durant
controlled as an officer 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 transferred to him in order that he might comply 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 CIIAIRMAN:
Q. In this conversation between Mr. Durant and Mr. Brooks, was anything said, that you remember, about the shares being transferred to Mr.
Neilson? —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 MIr. 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 somebody, 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 himr 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 hundred shares were held in the name of his wife; not in his own name.
Q. Do you 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 Mobilier stock?-A. None whatever.
Q. If you have any further papers to produce, you may present them




112                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
now.-A. I will do so whenever desired. I did not know that I was to
be examined to-day, and haven't them ill my pocket.
JOHN B. ALLEY made the following statement in regard to his testimony of yesterday:
I wish to answer further to a question put to me yesterday. My testimony in answer to the question " Were you here in Washington urging the passage of that bill about the time it passed?" 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 in 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 M3fr. MERRIC::
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 Credlit Mobilier stock in August, 1865, as I stated in my testimony, for five hundred
shares.
The committee adjourned until IM~onday next at 10 a. m.
WASItINGTON, January 13, 1873.
HiENRY L. DxWvES, a member of the United States House of Representatives, having been duly sworn, made the following statement:
I have been ready at all times, whenever it should be desired by 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 corl)oration, yet I did agree to take ten shares of that stock, but the agreement was rescinded before the stock was transferred to me, and it never
was transferred.
At the commencement of the session in Decemberi 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, MIr. W~ashburn, 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 Rapids Railroad, 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
bankl 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  something 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. IHe replied, "'It is a Pennsylvania corporation, which
has the contract to build the Pacific Railroad; it is a good thing,




CREDIT 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 wnant your stock at any
time, I will pay you back your money and 10 per cent. interest." I told
him I would think of it and let him know. Ithen 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 per cent.
Before he went home I had occasion to go home to Pittsfield, and
while there Mr. Edward Learned, a friend and nieighbor of mine, who
was then, I believe, an officer in the Kansas Pacific Railroad, came into
my office agnd 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 AMobilier charter, claiming 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, yola 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 iq 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 settlement, 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 Railroad.
Neither 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 offical 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 Railroad since the legislation 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 Congress.
In closing the statement of all that did occur in this transaction, I desire to add that, although I have never desired or sought to conceal in
any way anything that I have done in this matter, I have never made or
authorized any public statement in reference to it befobre 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
8x




114                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
York, thanking him for voluntarily and on his own responsibility denying 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 I have said,
as well as all that I have done in reference to this matter, may become
a part of this statement.
The note is as follows:
PITTSFIELnD, MI.tSSACHIUS]S TTS, Selptember 11, 1872.
Ml- DEl)l  Sin: I thank you for denouncing as a false libel the charge of the New
York Sun, so far as I 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. I never 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.
Truly yours,
H L..DAWES.
By the CHAIRMrAN:
Question. This sum of $1,000 you let lMr. Ames have was about the
beginning of the session of Congress?-Answer. I amn not entirely certain 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 beginning of the session of 1867.
Q. You say the dividend was paid to you during the time of the
transactions between you and AMr. 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 rgferred with Mr. Learned.
Q. How soon after you returned was this matter closed up?-A. Immediately; within a week. I went right back and told Mr. Amres I
could not take it.
Q. If I understood the reading of your statement, the result of the
thing was that during the time MIr. Ames had the $1,000 he paid you
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 jlust
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 2 —A. No, sir; all I knew
at the time was that it was good stock-at least that SMr. Ames thought
the company would make out of this contract with the Union Pacific
Railroad. lie told me that he would guarantee me ten per cent., and I
felt safe. The option was all I desired.
Q. The (ividend you received you supposed to have been declared on
the stockl 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?-A. No, sir; I was to take it from the time,
as I supposed.
Q. Did Mr. Amles 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 transactions 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 sunmmer.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    115
By MIr. 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 delivered up.
Q. That stock you never saw ei-A. No, sir.
WASHINGTON, D. C.,. january 13, 1873.
CHARLES H. NEILSON, sworn aind examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. State your residence and occupation.-Answer. I reside
in the city of New York. I am anll insurance 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 iRepresentatives?-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 Miobilier, and
subsequently of 50 shares more. I have here the receipt of the original 100 shares Credit Mobilier stock, dated December 26, 1867, and
another certificate of stock, 50 shares in the same company, dated February 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 undlerstand 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-inlaw, 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 MSr. 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 personally, and could not have got any myself.
Q. All the business was done by Mr. Brooks? —A. MIr. Brooks told
me that he could not go into it himself7 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 transaction?-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 company 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 iMOBILIER.
Q. Just how you came into 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 dividends, but I do not recollect that I ever went there to pay for that stock.
Q. How was the matter arranged between you and JMr. Brooks in reference to paying the $107000? —A. The arrangement was simply that
he advanced the money and I presume paid the company. That is all
I knob? 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 an 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. Nso, 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. Precisely. I have never given him any note or any bond for the moneythat is, my individual bond.
Q. The matter then remains unadjusted between you and him?-A.
It remains nunadjusted up to this time.
Q. How soon did you begin to receive dividends upon this one hundred shares of stock that you received?-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 Railroad Company's stock in the aggregate, and then some firstmortgage 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 t-alue of the Union Pacific Railroad 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 you 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 MOBILIER.                    117
Q. Have you received any dividends in money?.-A. I have received
one dividend, if I mistake not, of $9,000.
Q. Was that $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. No; 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 advanced 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 h1as given me money from time to time.
Q. Now, 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 Mir. Sidney DWilon. Dillon was there, and I saw him and got the money from him, and
gave collateral security. tHe loaned money to me individually.
Q. Had 3Mr. Brooks anything to do with the purchase or obtaining
these last fifty shares of stock?-A. Nothing 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 13r. Brooks was away?-A. Hie 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 Mir. Brooks nothing to do, in any manner, about the negotiation or payment for that fifty shares of stock? — 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 consequence of that. It was an increase of the capital stock by which 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. WViat did he say V-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 man you 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
on the part of the company to let you have' the stock — A. I ldo not




118                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 Ir. Dillon? —A. I
have not adjusted that loan with Mr. Dillon.
Q. You gave him secu rity?-e. 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. Not to my
knowledge.
Q. The last fifty shares of stock you received in February. Did yol
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 date
of the certificate?- A. Not at that time. I do not know whether I received 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 M3r. Brooks had no connection 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 the fifty 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 Mir. 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 Mfr. Brooks has no ownership, and h has had no owner —
ship in any way in these shares, but simply advanced $10,000 to purchase the first lot for you. He had no interest or concern in 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 i 0,000 advanced to pay for it, was it understood




CREDIT  O3OBILIER.                   11 9
that it was to be a loan of money to you, and that you were to repay
it? —A. Nothing was said about repaying it at the time. He simply
said he would advance it to ine.
Q. Did you understand that it was a loan or a gif 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
them in the way of dividends.
Q. Did you own any other stock in the Union Pacifie Railroad except
what you received in the way of dividends? —A. I never did.
By MIr. M     jiei:
Q. Did you approach IMr. Brooks for the purpose of getting him to secure this stock; or did he mention the matter to yo u personally? —A.
Mir. 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 put 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 put 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. Iid you advance any money at any time to him?f-A. Ii'lnever
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 speculation 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 anythi1ng 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 iMr. Brooks at that time an officer of the Union Pacific Railroad Company?-A. I do not know. I do not recollect.  The records
will show, I suppose.
By i1Mr. NI3LACK:
Q. You were at that time a son-in-law of tMr. Brooks?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. It hais been stated to the committee, I do not recollect from what
source, that your subscription of one hundred shares to this Credit Mobilier was not made in time, so as to entitle you, as a matter of right,
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 sonle months before the date of your first certificate in December, 1867, and therefore that you could not have obtained these fifty
shares of additional stock as a matter of right from the comnpany. Have
you any knowiledge or recollection on this point?-A. No knowledge or
recollection. I know nothing about it.




120                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Have you any recollection of any difficulty in getting it upon that
ground?-A. There was no ground given to me at first; the answer
was simply unsatisfactory, that I must 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 was my understanding; that I was entitled to it as a matter of right.
Q. Do I understand that you paid for the fifty shares? -A. if have
somewhere a receipt for the money paid out, I think at 104; I know I
paid a premium; I do not recollect the exact payment.
By the CHAIrmMAN:
Q. Do you know whether ilr. 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 once to the office and called for fifty shares, but did not
get it. You were told to call again, or had some put-off of that kind;
did you make any application, or say anything, to Mr. Brooks upon the
subject of these fifty shares?-A. I 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 e-:
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.
MUr. Brooks came, I 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.  lHe left that entirely to me.
There was nothing said about paying for it that dlay.
Q. There was nothing said about his advancing it? —A. No;  not for
the fifty shares.
Q. There wag 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 MIr. Brooks had anything to do with
it; whether he interfered, whether he had personally any interview in
reference to getting it?-A. Not to my 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. TNo 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 lme 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
Mlr. 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 you got this in



CREDIT MOBILIER.                     121
formiationl from him in consequence of any negotiation with anybody fA. No; I had no such understanding.
Q. It was a mere statement of fact that you were entitled to fifty
shares additional stock because you were the owner of these one hundred shares?-A. That was all.
By Mr. M3JERRICI:
Q. How long after you got this inforimation before you got the stock f
- A. I think it must have been several weeks.
Q. Was the, stock dated at the time you got it? -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 tiime I received it or not.
Q. Did you recollect what time you got it f-A. I do not recollect
that.
Q. You 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 Railroad, which you had derived as dividends — 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 f-cA.
Previously declared-yes.
Q. How many bonds did you deposit with him, do you recollect, for
that five thousand dollars f-A. About enough to cover the amount and
a little margin over, enough margin to cover it.- I think I 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?-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? -A. I have not.
Byi Mrr. IcCrARY:
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. I find here a statement of dividends running from  July, 1866, 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 f
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 ofiicerf —A.
I think it was from Mr. Ham. Generally speaking, I do not recollect
any other man.
Q. What position did he hold f-A. I think he was secretary, and he
may have been treasurer.
Q. Did you in all cases collect directly frotm him personally — A. That




122                    CRE DIT MOBILIEP.
I cannot say. I do not know,whether I did or not. I do not recollect.
Q. Did i  r. 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. lDid any person collect them for you?-A. JNo; I collected them
personally.
Q. In regard to this additional fifty shares, which you got by some
arrangement with Mlr. 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 any other person has paid
it? —A. I have no knowledge.
Q. Have you any information upon that subject at all?-A. No information. I have never spoken to Alr. 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 shaires --
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, 1S68, about the date of the certificate — 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?-A. I 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 hinm for the loan, stating
that it was collateral on that loan. That was th e only receipt he ga ve
me.
Q. So expressed upon its face?-A. So expressed upon its face.
Q. Have you that receipt?-A. Not with me.
3r. MERRICKI. You will please procure it and produce it before the
committee.
By Mr. AICCRARY:
Q. AIr. Dillon has never called on you for a settlement of that money?
-A. He has never on me.
Q. And you have never spoken to him on the subject?-A. To, 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 3Ir. 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 M3r. Brooks $9,000?-A. Yes; on account
of that loan.
Q. Have you let hlim have a-ay of the stock or receive any of the dividends  -A. No. No stock is in his name and none has been transferred
to him.
Q. Have you paid 1Mr. Brooks any other money on that account?-A.
I have given him nothing else except the bonds ats collateral for the
loan.
Q. What bonds have you received? —A. Union Pacific Railroad bonds.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    123
Q. Did you turn over to him all the bonds you received in the way of
dividends U. —A. I 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 iMr. 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 youL have hypothecated with
lMr. Dillon?-A. I do not think I have. I think I have given all the
bonds I have to Mr. Dillon and MIr. Brooks.
Q. Then if Mr. Dillon has turned over to Mir. Brooks the bonds you
gave to him, MIr. Brooks has received all the bonds paid you in the way
of dividends — A. If he has, I suppose MIr. 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 possession any of the dividends upon this stock, unless these bonds are
with Mr. Dillon — A. Nothing in my actual possession; they are hypothecated on other loans.
Q. You do not know whether Mqr. 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 e —A. That is the
one I refer to. It makes nine thousand dollars on the one hundred and
fifty shares.
Q. Were not the first-mortgage Union Pacific Railroad bonds equivalent 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 memorandareceipt will show.
Q. You did not leave with him any Pacific Railroad stock? —A. No.
Q. What have you done with the Union Pacific IRailroad stock received 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 MIr. 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 fluctuates. 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-cday.
Q. It is between thirty and forty, then?-A. That is too wide a margin; probably about thirty-five or thirty-six.




124                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Has Mr. Brooks ever said anything to you about the settlemei
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 somethin
over five hundred shares of the Union Pacific Railroad stock?-A. Ye,
sir.
Q. Is that stock in your own name?-A. It is in my own name an
in my own possession. It is not hypothecated; I have it.
Q. Has it been in your own name ever since it was issued?-A. I
has ever since it was issued. It, has never been changed.
Q. Then none of your stock has ever been in the name of Ali
Brooks?- A. Not one share of it.
Q. You received this stock as dividend from this Credit IMobilier?-Yes, sir.
By Mr. MICCOoMB:
Q. I understood you to say a moment ago that fifty shares of th;Credit Mobflier stock you received by virtue of your ownership of th
first one hundred. Am I right in that f-A. That is what I said.
Q. Do you know when the increase of Credit Mobilier stock was mad
entitling the holders to that increase? -A. I do not know the exac
date.
Q. Did you get any notice from the Credit Mobilier corporation o
any person that you were entitled of right to take an increase of you
stock?-A. I may have done so, but do not remember.
Q. Do you not know that they served a written notice upon ever,
holder of the Credit MIobilier stock to that effect? -A. I do not knol
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 pa:
your money for the first hundred shares? —A. I was unable to get that
(except through the influence of Mr. James Brooks, and he advance(
the money.
Q. Did he pay for it?-he must have paid for it.-A. I do not knov
the fact.
Q. Did you know to whom he paid it?-A. I do not know. It wa,
paid and charged to my account, and the money must have been paid
Q. But not to your knowledge by youf —A. I did not pay it mysel
with my own check.
Q. When you went to the office to get Che stock, you found it alreadi
paid for, and standing in your name? —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 Pacifi>
Railroad office.
Q. There are a good many persons there, are there not?-A. Ther{
are a great many there, I do not know which I applied to.,There arseveral gentlemen to whom I have applied on different occasions.
Q. Whio 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 f? —. I do not remember,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    125
know that I did not consider it a matter of sufficient imnportance to
ake a memorandum of. I got my dividend, but I have collected larger
vidends than that, frequently, on other transactions.
Q. When you got your certificate of one hundred shares, did you get
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
mnnot.
Q. When did you get dividends on your stock — A. I got them at
irious times, distributed over years.
Q. You do not remember when you got the first dividend?-A. There
as 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'ter?-A. I do not remember the time.
Q. Do I understand you that the dividends were distributed over
mars?-A. Over more than one year.
Q. Do you or not know that the original holders of Credit Maobilier
ock received every dividend from the first declared, which was in
pril, 1866, whether retrospectively or prospectively?-A. I do not
now 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 colcted all the dividends they would pay me.
Q. When you made application for the first certificate of stock you.
ceived, did you not at the same time get a memorandum, made out in
gular foirm, with a description of stocks and bonds already accrued as
vidends e-A. I could not swear that I did.
Q. Did you not sign a book receipting for your dividends? —A. I
ways signed a book for receipts.
Q. Did you not sign a book without getting something? —A. No, I
mver did sign any book without receiving something for it.
Q. Do you recollect, when you gave the first receipt, what you reived?- A. I do not remember.
Q. Do you know whether you got anything?-A. I got something for,or I would not have given the receipt.
Q. You do not know that you received stock and bonds which had:crted; you do not know anything about that?-A. No, sir..
Q. You say you got notice to go for this additional stock from Mr.
rooks. Has Mir. Brooks given you a chance in other things?-A. He
Is put me in other good things.
Q. Did you ever receive chances from him in the Atlantic and Pacific
]Iegraph Company?-A. No, sir; he never put me in any telegraph,mpany.
Q. From whom did you get notice about the fifty shares of stock  1.
M Ir. 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.e gentlemen in the office, I do not remember which. The only three
knew in the office were Mir. Dillon, Mir. Crane, and Mr. Ham.
Q. What did you understand by Mr. Brooks having power to put you
to this concern?-A. I understood him exactly as I stated, that he,uld put me into a good thing if I wanted to go in. That was my
iderstanding, that he would give meme a chance and put me in the way
making a good speculation.
Q. You say you got the money to pay for this additional stock from
r. Dillon, president of the company; that you received the bonds
hich you gave him at that time as collateral — A. I did not say that.
gave him, as collateral, bonds which I had received long before.
Q. As dividends on the one hundred shares? —A. Yes.




126                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 fronm 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 received 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 I 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. MICCRARY:
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. Nor tell the year you received them f —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 between Mr. Brooks and myself.
~ASmHINGcTON, D.J C., January 14, 1873.
The CHAIRtAN 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 have 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 committee was that Mr. Alley gave Mr. Brooks fifty shares of Credit Mobilier
stock upon condition that he should influence democratic mem



CREDIT MOBILIER.                   127
bers of Congress. Mr. Alley denied that charge, and, no proof of it was
alleged except the statement of Mr. MIcComb. 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 purpose 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. McComb or should believe Mr. Alley.
The CHAIRMAN 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 CHARLES H. NEILSON continued.
[By Mr. SMITIHERS, (counsel for Mr. McComb:)
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 that 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 that?-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 afterward, or wefre they casual merely?-A. Merely casual.
Q. Can you give me any information as to how many times you had
met Mir. Dillon between the time of your first introduction and this investment of money — A. I cannot recollect.
Q. Were they frequent or infrequent — A. Infrequent, comparatively
speaking.
Q. Then, if I understand you, MIr. Dillon was a comparative stranger? —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 operations specially. Had you any generally?-A. I
had none.
Q. When this money was advanced, where was it advanced — A. At
Mr. Dillon's office.
Q. At the office of the Credit Mobiiier? -A. At the office of the
Credit Mobilier.
Q. How was it advanced-how paid'lwhat 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 way.
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. Jlade 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. Received from Charles E. Neilson certificate 298, for




128                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
20 shares; 299, for 30 shares; capital stock U. P. R. I. Co., and firstmortgage bonds, as collateral for the loan of $5,233.33. Sidney Dillon."7
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 f —A. On the 29th
February.
Q. Did you, on the 29th of February, receive a certificate for this
stock? —A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. TWhen did you receive the certificate?-A. WVhen 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. Wivas 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 knowlidge in relation to these,
fifty shares f-A. About the same time; in the latter part of February.
Q. Your knowledge, if I understand you correctly, came thr6ugh the,
suggestions of Mr. Brooks?-f-A. 3My 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 the.
operation of the Credit Mobilier and to your rights under 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 f-A. Nothing except as derived from Mr. Brooks. I was told I
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 tonay Qffice, or
looking over any papers I had on the subject.
WASHIINGTON, D. C., Janzuary 14, 1873.
J. A. GARFIELD, a member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Ohio, having been duly sworn, made the fol —
lowing statement:
The first I ever herard of the Credit Mobilier was some time in 1866 or
1867-I 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 Railroad 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 subscriptions were limited to $1,000 each, and he wished me to subscribe.
EHe 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 MOBILIER.                     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 I would yet conclude to subscribe. The same day I
asked Mir. Ames what he thought 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
almost forgotten, when some timne, I should say, during the long session
of 1868, Mr. Ames spoke of it again; said the company had organized,
was doing well, and 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 hold 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 subscription,
the extent to which I 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
would 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.
Tlhus the matter rested for some tithe, 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 I had heard that the company was involved in some controversy with the Pacific Railroad, and that Mr. Ames's right to sell the
stock was denied. When I next saw Mfir. Ames I told him I had concluded not 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 subject began to be discussed in the newspapers last 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 Pacific Railroad or for any other
purpose. Mr. Ames never gave, nor offered to give, me any stock or
other valuable thing as a gift. I once asked and obtained from him,
and afterward repaid to him, a loan of $300; that amount is the only
valuable thing I ever received Crom or delivered to him.
I never owned, received, or agreed to receive any stock of the Credit
MIobilier or of the Union Pacific Railroad, nor any dividend or profits
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? —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 Mobilier 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 remember 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. I made the request
myself. I think I had asked one or two persons before for the loan.
9X




130                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Have you any knowledge in reference to any dealings of Mr. Ames
with any gentlemen in Congress in reference to the stock of the Credit
lMobilier? —A. No, sir; I 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; ini 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 thlat I did not wish to
take stock in anything that would involve controversy. I think I gave
him no other reason than that.
Q. When you ascertained the relation that this company had witli
the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and whence its profits were to be
derived, would you have considered that a sufficient reason for declining
it irrespective of other considerations?-A. It would have been 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,
intentionally, from 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 organization
was unchanged. I ought to say for myself, as well as for Mr. Ames,
that, he never said any word to me that indicated the least desire to influence my legislative action in any way. If he had'any such purpose,
he certainly never said anything to me which would indicate it.
Q. You know now, and have known for a long time, that Mr. Ames
was deeply interested in the legislation on this sub1ject?-A. I supposed
that he w-as largely interested in the Union Pacific Railroad. 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 did not electioneer with you or solicit your
vote. —A. Certainly not. None of the conversations I ever had with
him had any reference to such legislation.
By Mr. MIERlRICK:
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 Rtailroad — A. I have not. I
can say to the committee that I never saw, I believe, in my life a certificate of stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and I never saw
any certificate of stock of the Credit Mobilier, until Mr. Brooks exhibited 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?A. No, sir.
Q. This loan of $300 you have repaid, if I understood you correctly?A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. McCRAXY:
Q. You never examined the charter of the Credit Mobilier to see what
were its objects — A. No, sir; I 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 uu



CREDIT MOBILIER.                     131
derstood from the statement of Mr. Train that its objects were connected
with the lands of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the development of settlements along that road; 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. He stated it was for the purpose of purchasing land and building
houses?-A. That was the statement of Mr. 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
Railroad? —A. No, sir; I did not.
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 14, 1.873.
BENJAMIN F. llAMI sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. State your residence and occupation. Ainswer. I reside in
the State of New Jersey. My business is in New York. I am engaged,
passively, in building railroads.
Q. Have you been in any way connected with the Union Pacific Railroad Company or the Credit 3obilier? — A. Yes, sir; as auditor of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company and assistant secretary of the Credit
Mobilier.
Q. How long have you been auditor of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company — A. ]Fromn Januar.y, 1867, lUntil October, 1870.
Q. You do not hold that position now?-A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. How early were you connected with the Credit Mobilier?-A.
Early in 1867.
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, 1868,
and received the appointment again in May, 1870.
Q. During that period of time, were you in any way connected with
that company — A. Simply as clerk.
Q. You were in the office of that company.?-A. No, sir; the office
was removed from place to place during that time.
Q. Have you now the custody of the books of the complany f-A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Have you brought here such as the committee directed you to
bring-I-A. They have been brought to the city, and I expect the Express 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 in Philadelphia, and it was necessary for rme 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 know whether I would recoguize him if I would
meet him now.
Q. Do you or not know whether his hname appears as one of the shareholders of the company? — A. It does for one hundred and fifty shares.
Q. Have yot any knowledge of the actual ownership of these shares,
as to whether they belonged to Mr. Neilson or anybody else?-A. I




132                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
supposed they belonged to Mr. Neilson. I know of nothing to the contrary.
Q. Have you ever known 3Mr. Brooks to have any interest in these
shares?-A. I have no such personal knowledge.
Q. Have you ever known Mr. Brooks to have anything to do with
these shares — A. I 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?.-A. To Mr. Neilson.
Q. What are the books you have present? —A. I have the stockledger, the five 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. Neilson's stock and state what it shows.A. It shows the date of issue December 26, 1867. It shows the number 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 C. Durant.
Q. Then this stock before that time stood in the name of MIr. DuraitS
and was transferred by him to Mr. Neilson'? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does the stock-ledger show in regard to the fifty shares increase? VWhat do the words'" new subscription"' mean?-A. That means
that he bought fifty shares additional of new stock, which was issued to
him directly. That stock had not previously been in the name of any
one; he took it directly from the company.
Q. Did you understand that he was entitled to take fifty shares of pew
stock in consequence of his ownership of the previous one hundre!
shares?-A. That was my understanding.
Q. When was the new stock authorized?-A. In Februamry, 1867.
Q. And this issue of fifty shares was in March, 1868. It has been
stated here that the time for taking this new stock was limitedcl; that
there was s )me short period of time within which the owners of original
stock had the right to take additional shares, and that that time had expired long before this transaction?-A. The resolution adopted allowed
the stockholders to take additional shares, as I recollect, within ninety
days, but, after that period had expired, by general consent, it was extended. There were several large stockholders who had not then paid for
their subscriptions.
Q. You mean, then, that the resolution was not regarded in its limitation, but that every man  who was the owner of original stock was
allowed to take, even at a later period, additional stock — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Neilson was in that way allowed to take these fifty shares? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. iLt is stated here that he paid something in addition to the par
value of this stock; that he paid $5,233 for the fifty shares. Can yot
explain what that premiuml  was for? —A. This stock was issued the
1st of July, 1867, and every man who took stock subsequent to that
date paid interest on this additional, and the $5,000 paid by MIr.
Neilson -was to adjust his interest account.
Q. This certificate of stock is dated February 29, 18SS; how comes it
that the date on the stock-ledger is the 3d of March?-A. I cannot explain, although the entries are in my handwriting.
Q. The entry on the ledger is supposed to correspond withl the date
of transer? —A. Yes, sir, with the transfer of the certificate; there




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      133
must have been some mistake in the entries. I cannot account for it
myself.
Q. WVas 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. Durant 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 himl; the payment was made at the time tihe stock was
transferred to Mr. Neilson? -A. No, sir; the stock stood in the name
of Thomas C. Durant, and the certificate caine to me with the request
that I would transfer it to MIr. Neilson.
Q. You have no knowledge by whom the paynment was made,. whether
by Mr. Neilson or by anybody for him?-A. No, sir.
Q. In relation to the payment of. the last fifty 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 here every moment, will not 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 paind it for him?-A. I do not remember anything about it;
when the cash-book is here it will show the date, and will show the
money as coming from IMVr. Neilson; whether it was really received
from him I cannot say.
Q. Turn now to the name of Mr. Durant, as trustee, in the stockledger. —A.. I do not think any of that stock was taken by, MIr. Durant
as trustee; I think it was taken in his own name, or in the name of H.
C. Crane as trustee. Here is -Mr. Durant's individual 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. C. IDurant, and on the same day one hundred to AIr.
Neilson.
Q. Do you say there was no stock standing in Mr. Duraut's name as
trustee?-A. I think none of it was issued to Mr. Durant as trustee.
Q. Then two pa(es are all there is on the stock-ledger, referring to
Mr. Durant's account of stock — A. Yes, sir; some of the stock apportioned to Mr. Durant was issued to H. C. Crane. Mr. Crane is private
secretary, and that stock was issued to him as trustee.
Q. Then the stock held in the name of 3Ir. Crane was held for Mr.
Durantf-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 hundred 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 September 12, 1866.
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 IH. J. Gilbert, of Boston,
and three shares to R. D. Bush, trustee.




134                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Do you know who he is?-A. Yes, sir; he lives in New York.
Q. DIo you know for whomn he is trustee? —A. That belongs to my
son; Mr. Bush holds these three shares as trustee for my son.
Q. Do you know whether or not a portion of the stock standing ini the
name of Mr. Ames, as trustee, has ever been sold to anybody, except the
thirteen shares — A. I do not.
Q. Have you ever had any information from him that anybody was
the owner of any portion of that stock, exceplt as to these thirteen
shares?-A. No, sir.
Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to his having contracts for
any portion of it with anybody — A. Nothing except a general knowledge, such as people would get from the papers and from his own published testimony.
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 3Mr. Ames, as trustee, the same as upon other stock of the company?-A. They 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; I have not.
Q. Can you state how 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 he received the certificates.
Q. The stock has all been paid for 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 MAobilier. I paid that myself.
Q. AWhen 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 Railroad 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 e-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
Mir. 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 MIOBILIER.                    135
By the C-HAIRMAN:
Q. Do you remember whether he gave any reason for that request?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you understand why he wished to transfer it in small sums?A. I 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 certificates.
Q. Do you not know whether Mr. Ames said so?-A. No, sir; that is
what Ipresumed. 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. Tlhis 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. I think it will show the name of every
person to whom certificates of stock have been issued.
By 3Mr. MERRICK:
Q. I suppose this stock was like other stocks of incorporated conmpanies, transferable upon indorsement and power of 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 company in New York, except when dividends are to be 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 whose name appears on your stock-ledger when
the dividend is declared is the man to whom you pay the dividend, although 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 dividends. For instance, I sold the other day one hundred shares of Northwestern stock standing in my name, and the party to whom I sold it had
to come to me to get his dividend or a power of attorney from me to collect the money.
Q. Do I understand you if A holds twenty shares, upon which a
dividend will be declared next July, and those twenty shares are transferred a half a dozen times, that the ultimate holder must hunt up the
man in whose name it stood on the books and get his authority before
he can draw the dividends e-A. Yes, sir. Hie 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, 1867. 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 MOBILIER.
sir; but we seldom write any letters. The company is not doing any
business.
Q. Then this book embraces all the letters that have been written for
the company from its commencement to the present time — A. It embraces all written by me and all handed down to me by my predecessors.
It is the only letter-book I 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. I had
nothing to do with that.
Q. Do you know who originally kept the account under that contract e
-A.- Mr. Crane did originally, but I presume they have been turned
over to Oliver Ames, as chairman of the trustees.
By the CAIRBMAN:
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 iAlobilier?-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 Neilson? —A. No, sir.
Q. Was there anything in any of them in reference to the shares
issued to Mr. Ames in his name as trustee?-A. There may be something
of that kind. I frequently wrote letters to Mr. Ames.
Q. I see here notices sent to various parties that they must come in
by a certain time and take their additional 50 per cent. of stock or
it would be canceled?-A. Yes, sir; but, as I stated, that notice was
not enforced.
Q. The name of Mr. Brooks does not appear on your books as a holder
of stock?-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. MERRICK:
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 not
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 your business that the stock
should be issued before it was paid for — A. No, sir; he did not get it
until he paid for 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 February, and not delivered until he paid for it on the 3d of March. Sometimes 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 cannot
tell where the discrepancy occurred.
Q. You may have delivered it at a subsequent date, I suppose, while
the certificate itself was antedated? —A. Yes; that might be done if it
had been issued as I said, and kept in my possession waiting for it to




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    137
b6 paid for, or for the signature of the president, it would appear to be
antedated.
By Mr.:McCRARY:
Q. You issued these additional fifty shares yourself~?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Sidney Dillon have anything to do with it? —A. I presume as
president of the company he 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 be a personal matter, of which I would know
nothing.
Q. You do not know of any loan he made to Neilson at that time?A. No, sir; that would be a personal matter that I should not know
about.
Q. You know nothing personally about the dividends paid after the
oAmes contract. was entered into?-A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know that the profits were divided among the holders of
the Credit iMobilier stock? -A. For a time they were. Afterward
they were divided among certain individuals.
Q. VWrere 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 3Mobilier abandoned after the Ames contract
was entered into?-A. Mr. Durant can tell you the whole history of
that better 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 Aobilier as a corporation, you paid
yourself? —A. Yes.
Q. And you say you paid Neilson his share in person? —A. The certificates of the Union Pacific Railroad stock were issued to Mr. Neilson
on the comlpany's books, I l)resume, and their books will show who receipted for them.
Q. You do not remember the particular transaction, then, of paying
that dividend to Neilson?-A. Nio; I do not.
By Mr. NIBLACK:
Q. You had no official or personal connection with the trustees of the
Ames contract? —A. No, sir.
Q. Have not many persons confounded in their minds the profits made
npon that contract and the profits made upon the Credit Mobilier
stock — A. I 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
you 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 I can. I 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 MOBILIER.
Q.  )o your stock-books show that any members of Congress are
stockholders of the Credit 3:obilier? —A. Yes, sir; they show that
Samuel Hooper was interested as a member of the firm of Samuel
Hooper & Co.; that B. F. Boyer was interested, and Mr. Grimes and
Mr. Alley were.
Q. Was Mr. Boyer an original subscriber to the' stock, or did he purchase the certificate afterward? —A. He purchased afterward. Mr.
Grimes, Mr. Hooper, and Mr. Alley were among the original subscribers.
Q. None 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 official action on record making the extension?A. No, sir.
Q. Did anybody besides Neilson get stock after the time had expired — A. I think several parties did.
Q. Will you give us the names of any others? —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 CHAIRMIAN:
Q. I see in the letter-book, here, a letter from yourself to Mr. Ames,
dated Janutary 20, 1868, which letter is as follows:
" JANUARY 20.
"i)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 Oakes
Ames, trustee, the remaind{er 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
by you, and will formvard others when 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 here. I wrote you Saturday 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.'I Respectfulfly,
"BENJTAMTIN F. HAM.
" Hon. OAKES A3iMES, iM. C.,
" Washington, D. C."
What explanation have you to the reference here imade to dividing
this stock up into small certificates?-A. lt 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 direction, and, as you supposed, for convenience of delivery?-A. Yes, sir.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     139
I supposed for the purpose of enabling him to deliver it to different
individuals.
Q. I see another letter in this letter-book, dated January 31, 1868,
which reads as follows:
" JANTIARY 31.
" DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 27th is received, with contents as
stated. The parties should pay 7 per cent. from July 1, 1867, to date of
payment. I inclose herewith 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 Credit Mobilier, you will know.
"Itespectfully,
"' BENJAMIN F. HAM,
" Assistant Secretary Credit 3Mobilier of America.
01Hon. OAKES AiMES.
i' Washington, D. C."
Do you preserve all the letters you receive? —A. No, sir; this Credit
Mobilier during the time i was out of office was pushed around front
one place to another, Land many of the papers were lost. During the
James Fisk raid, the company was transferred to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 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; I do not.
Q. Have you any recollection whether he stated in that letter what
he wanted the certificates for?-A. I 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 1, 1867.
Q. And that interest you suppose made up the premium on the fifty
shares of Neilson's stock f —A. Yes, sir; he paid interest from the  st
of July, 1867, in the same way.
Q. Do you know anything in relation to how these shares stood in the
market in December, 1867, and January, 1868? —A. After this subscription 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
moulths-from January until May, 1867; still it was not upon the market.
Q. In December, 1867, and January, 1868, what was it selling for? —
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 made?-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 in 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, and 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 prices at which it was held by various parties.
Q. What prices? —A. Brom two to three hundred.
Q. Do you think you would have lost anything if you had purchased




140                   CREDIT M.OBILIER.
at that 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 in value?-A. They were selling at 85 yesterday.
By Mr. BLACK:
Q. It seems that a number of the stockholders or directors of the
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 that 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 certain number of stockholders, who were directing the affairs of the company — A. I think it
was done 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. DI)o you know whether Mr. Ames, or anybody else there present,
agreed that the shares thus given to him as trustee should be distributed — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know of any intention of their being distributed at Washington, among members of Congress or other persons here, or whether
he was to distribute them elsewhere? —A. There was nothing said to me
on that subject.
Q. Nor for what parties they were put into his hands?-A. No, sir2
I was simply a clerk in the transaction.
Q. Did Mr. Ames pay anything for these shares at that time?-A. He
paid for them before he took them. He paid for them at different times.
Q. When the entry was made upon the books of the Credit Mobilier
of the transfer to Oakes Ames of the three-hundred and forty-three
shares-two hundred and fifty and ninety-three-was he put down
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, &c.?-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 is
put down for that amount of three hundred and forty-three shares 3A. Yes, sir; except that in November, 1868, 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 fhe 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 money, and usually upon Boston banks.
Q. Of course 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




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     141
divided to the different stockholders, the same as anybody else did t
That is, did these three hundred and forty-three shares receive the same
amount of dividend that anybody else got on the same number of shares?
-A. They received the same number bf dividends that any other like
amount of Credit Mobilier stock received.
Q. Did any other stockholders'of the Credit Mobilier receive a larger
share in proportion out of the profits of the railroad company? —A. The
profits of the Oakes Ames contract Mr. Crane can explain fully to you.
Hie can state whether Mr. Ames received the same profits as any one
else. I had nothing to do with it.
Q. Can you state whether Mlr. Ames received all the profits that accrued upon these three hundred and forty-three shares of Credit Mobilier
stock e-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 MIr. 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 Te got that stock?-A. The identical certificate
fromn which it was transferred was a part of the original subscription.
Q. Do you know by what authority, or for what reason, or in pursuance of what agreement the fifty shares were directed to be transferred
from Mr. Durant to Neilson?-A. They were never transferred at all;
thev were new stock. They had niever been issued to anybody.
Q. By wliat authority were they given to Neilson, by whose direction?-A. By the authority of the parties in interest. I certainly would
nor 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. Have you that writing withyou?- A. I have not. As I said, many
of the papers, during the time while I was not secretary-when they.
were lost-they were scattered. The books were in the office of!Mr.
Barnes, some of the timer 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 thilnk
Mr. McComb was one. [NMr. MIcCoMB. I was not.] I do not recollect
positively what names were on it.
Q. Was Oakes Ames's name on it -A. I (ldo not think he signed it,
and I do not think Oliver Ames signed it.
Q. Who were the heavy stockholders?-A. Mr. Durant was one of the
heaviest. I think Oliver Ames was second; and Oakes Ames was a very
heavy stockholder.
Q. Is the paper you now refer to the one which specifically authorized
the transfer of the fifty shares?-A. Yes, sir; that is as I understands
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 accompanied with a bond; that is, the parties holding original stock,,
who received the 50 per cent. additional, received a $1,000 bonId for
every $1,000 of shares.




142                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. VTWhich bond would pay for stock? —A. Not quite, because the
bonds were not worth par. The bonds at par would pay for the stock.
Q. They were the first-mortgage bonds of the company? -A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Who were at that time the executive committee of the Credit Mobilier — A. I should prefer to look at the records. I think Mr. Alley,
Mr. Hazzard, and Mr. Dillon were the executive committee.
Q. Do you take your directions in your official conlduct 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,
without their direction?-A. Not without the direction of the executive
committee or the direction of the president. I would have done anything Mr. Dillon, the president of the company, directed.
Q. Was that after the Credit Mobilier ceased to be used ais a corporation by the Union Pacific Railroad, or before — A. It was after the
Credit Mobilier had anything to do with the construction of the road.
Q. Then what authority would Mr. Dillon, as presidlent of the company, have to direct you, when the whole business was ill the hands of
the seven trustees?.-A. The business of the Credit Mobilier was never
in the hands of the seven trustees. The conti'act made with Oakes
Ames was in the hands of seven trustees. The business of the Credit
MIobilier was not in their hands; it was conducted by itself, and by its
proper officers.
Q. Had these corporate officers any control in the Pacific Railroad
afterward?-A. It had control over the issue of its own stock.
Q. What value had that stock apart from the profits it would make
out of that contract —A. It had no value except th~at the assets were
worth something.
Q. The 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 retained. In taking this new subscription the company had to buy these
bonds of the Union Pacific ttailroad Company and pay for them with
their own money. They paid them out to their new stockholders; consequently the new stock did not net the Credit Mobilier anything. They
bought them, and paid 85, the market price.
Q. The bonds they 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 Pacific
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 buying them out of their own capital e 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 inll'fact a dividend, regular or irregular?-A. You
might call it so.
Q. Do you say that the assets of the company have been exhausted




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     143
in this way? —A. No, sir; I do not say that the assets of the company
have been exhausted.
Q. How nearly have they been exhausted? IHow much of the capital
has been disposed of in this waiy?-A. It would be difficult to say what
the assets of the company amount to now.
Q. Let me ask you whether you could or could not have issued that
fifty shares of stock to Neilson without special direction or instruction
either from the president of the Credit Mobilier or the executive committee of that institution  -A. I could not have issued it without the
signature of the president.  All the stock-certificates bear his signature..
Q. Had youi, or any other subordinate of the company, a right to sell
that stock to anybody. Was it up for sale? Were the books open for
receiving subscription?-A. No, sir.
Q. Then any issue of these fifty shares must have been the result of
some special agreement between the authorities of the company and
the person who received them. —A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you say you do not know what the nature of the agreement
was?-A. No, sir; the agreement might have been made known to me
at the time.
Q. Do you say it was, or was not, made known to you ~-A. It may
have been made known to ine, and I may have been instructed to issue
it on account of the desire of the principal stockholders.
Q. Who would give you such instructions?-A. Mr. Dillon, the president, or iMr. Hazard, or any one else having authority.
By Mr. 3MERRICK:               ~f
Q. Let me ask whether, when you delivered this stock to Neilson,
you delivered to him also.the, bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, according to the general arrangement under the new subscription? -A. I will state that as soon as I receive the cash-book of the
company. This was four or five years ago, and I do not remember.
Q. It would have been in accordance with the course of dealing of the
company in this matter to have issued such bonds to Neilson at the
moment of delivering to hilm the certificate of his stock?-A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. BLACK:
Q. When it was concluded to discard the corporate machinery of the
Credit Mobilier in this business and substitute the seven trustees, did
that make any difference in the right of the stockholders of the Credit
Mobilier to receive the same dividends which they would have been
entitled to if no such transaction had taken place?-A. I presume it
did not.
Q. The stock of the Credit AMobilier continued to be transferable as
before?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the transferring of stock carried with it, of course, the right
to receive the dividends which would otherwise be received onil the
stock? —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
corporate authorities of the Credit Mobilier — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any difference in the arrangement of the whole matter,
except in the mere personal material by which it was done, the mere
organism of the association?-A. Yes, sir; there was a decided difference.
I was assistant secretary of the Credit Mobilier, keeping these books
and accounts, and they had nothing whatever to do with the Oakes
Ames contract.




144                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Was Mr. Alley generally at the meetings of the executive committee?-A. Not necessarily. It only took two to make a majority of the
executive coinmitteq.
Q. Was Mr. Alley generally one of the majority — A. No, sir; sometimes Mr. Hazard and Mr. Dillon acted, and sometimes Mr. Dillon and
Mr. Alley.
Q. Was Mr. Alley the principal man or the leading man among
them? —A. M{r. Alley had a good deal of influence.
Q. Do you know whether he did not take such a supervision of the
affairs of the company there as to make it almost nhecessary for him to,
know everything that took place, at least in regard to every important
transaction that took place?-A. No, sir; I do not know that it did
become necessary.
Q. Was it not his duty, as a member of the exenutive committee, to
see to everything of very great importance — A. The duties of the executive committee were to transact all the business that the board of
directors could 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 ye'ars ago, and I can hardly remember
every circumnstance.
Q. Did he call upon you for an account of your stewardship?-A. An
account of my stewardship was annually rendered at the annual meeting of the corporation.
Q. Was that all?-A. If he asked me for information, I always gave
it to him. I do not think Mlr. 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. What business was the Credit Aflobilier 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 charter.
Q. You referred to a paper, signed by certain of the heavy stockholders, authorizing these fifty 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 be
issued..
Q. Was not the reason stated there why it should be issued, the considerationm for its being issued, and for whose 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  IOBILIER.                   145
there may have been between Mr. Durant and Mr. Brooks, or Mr. Durant
and Mar. 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 committee, did not you produce that paper?-A. I could not produce anything 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 possession of it.
Q. Did you look and search for it?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is it V?-A. That I cannot say.
Q. Where are the letters and other papers of the company generally? —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. Hfow 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 office to the Union Pacific Railroad, at 20 Nassau street, and what became of them I cannot say.
Q. Do you know by whose order they were removed?-A. They were
removed by order of Mr. Dillon.
Q. Where -A. That I cannot say. They went traveling. A part
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. No, 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. No,
sir; not while they were in New York. If there was an order, they were
out of the jurisdiction of the State when the order was made.
Q. Wras it you who locked up the safe, and carried away the combination? —A. Yes, sir; but they were not in the safe.
Q. You had carried off the papers before you carried away the combination? —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 liiely 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 Syou not know that`Mr. Dillon has these papers or has the control of them?-A. No, sir; I do not. I do not think Ar. Dillon could
tell you anything about where they were.
Q. Were they not taken and destroyed, that they might never be seen
by anybody?-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 cannot state. I have no knowledge.
Q. Do you know where the stock transfer-book is?-No, sir; I do
not. That is one of the books that disappeared.
Q. Disapperared how V-A. I do not know how.
10 x




146                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. You mean to say you saw it disappear?-A. I mean to say that I
saw it in December, 1868, and have never seen it since.
Q. You knew where it went to 0?-A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Did you destroy it?-A. No, 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?-A. No, sir.
Q. Never any blotter or scratcher or journal. —A. We kept a journal
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 CHAIRMAN:
Q. You think there was a paper signed by somebody, authorizing
the issue of fifty shares of stock to Neilson — A. That is my: impression, sir.
Q. You refer only to these fifty shares? —A. I would not say it referred 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 miay have been in it.
Q. Do you think it was' —A. That I (o not know, and I should hesitate 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?-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 company made to every
maan who signed for any nurnber of shares of the increased Credit tiobilier stock-, giving them an equal amount of Pacific Railroad 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. WTas all this fifty per cent. increase taken by the men who held the
stock origin3ally — A. They either took it or sold it to other parties
whomn they procured to take it.
Q. If a man holding original stock transferred that stock to somebody else, it was understood as transferring the  he himself would
navre 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 Mar. Neilson first had in December, 1867. Did -Mr. Darant ever receive the 50 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 MOBILIER.                      147
over again?-A. He would not acquire any right except such as the
parties in interest might choose to confer.
Q. If Mr. Durant 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 IDurant 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. No, sir.
A. And you would not be authorized to issue it to him?-A. No, sir.
Q. What right would anybody, except the stockholders, have to
authorize Neilson 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 additional 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 matter of course that he was
to take it — A. No, sir; not after the time given in the notice had expired.
Q. IDo 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 additional 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 $3,750,0O0.




148                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
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. additional, 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 -?
A. I presume he did not receive it.
Q. Do you remember of any case where a subscriber did not receive
the bonds e —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 issuing 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,
you 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 subscription was made for the
decrease 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 — eA.
The bonds had not been upon the market. They were pledged as collateral 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 woulld 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 stockholders, or nearly all of them, willing to take it, even upon these favorable terms?-A. Some of them did not take it for a long time. 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 cbnsequence of the affairs 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 company determined that it would be ulnjust to those stockholders who had
not availed themselves of their privilege not to be allowed to take their
stock, axnd therefore.the arrangeient was that they should all be served
alike?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you the custodian of the books, and have you been all the
time since I have had any particular connection with the Credit Mfobilier.
-A. Not all the time.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      149
Q. VWere 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?-A. That I]
cannot tell. There imay 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 himr by virtue of the ri/ght which he had
to the increase of the 50 per cent. Is that so — 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 1knew anything 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
Judge 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 thatf —A. Yes, sir; it was entirely:on account of that suit.
Q. It was not to keep the books or papers from any of the stockholders 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 INew York courts, and get their.authority to remove
the ofTice of the company to Boston?-A. It was.
By M3r. BLACK:
Q. Was this increase of stock before or after you became treasurer? —
A. It was before.
By the CHAIRIMAN
Q. At what time was it that tthese 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 paDers
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, 0. V. Barnes.
Q. Ie lived in Philadelphia — A. A part of the time, and a part of
the time in New York.
Q. What portion of therim were in Philadelphia?-A. I do not know
but they were all there. I did not know where they were. I know that




150.            CREDIT MOBILIER.
I had hard work to get them again. and that 1 did not succeed in getug 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 inquire, 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 8-A. Yes, sir; I have made
inquiry and examination in various places.
Q. Have you made examination 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 thanl you have stated — A. No, sir.
By MVrf. MOCRARY:
Q. Do you say they went into MIr. Dillon's hands?-A. Yes, sir; but
he would not know a-nything about them. He paid very little attention
to the matter.
Q. Did you ever inquire of him?- A. Yes, sir.
Q. lDo 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 Jfr. BLACK:
Q. When you parted with these books, did you take 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 w as 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 possessionu —A. This increase of stock was ordered in February, 1867. May appointment was in May, 1867. 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. MeComb -for the increase of the stock? —A. I could tell you that by referring 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 Pennsylvania in the case of McComb against the Credit Mobilier.-A. I believe they were.
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 MOBILIER.                        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. Another answer
was that we exlpected 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 colld 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 Twhether 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 somne time
afterward. I took them there myself.
By M r. MfEPU ICKc:
Q,. Can you tell uis who were the directors or managers of the Credit
Mobilier in 1867 and 1868? —A. M~r. 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 I-A. No; sir; he
never has been.
Q. Was Oakes Ames?-A.  He never has been.
Q. Was T. C. Durant — A. Not since Mary, 1867.
Q. 5Vas John J. Cisco? —A. No, sir.
Q. H... McComb — A. SNo, sir.
Q. Was Sidney Dillon?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was B. E. Bates?-A. No, sir.
Q. Was John B. Alley? —A. Yes, 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 remeumber Mr.
Barnes, M/ir. 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 generally 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 Railroad at that tiime?-A. No, sir.
By the CxIRminArN:
Q. What entries have you in regard to thee issuing of the ninety- three
shares of stock to M3r. Ames as trustee?-A. I have here al entry of
$9,300 received from Oakes Ames as trustee.
Q. Which shows that he paid for the ninety-three sharesI-A. Yes.
Q. You stated that you could tell by reference to the books whether
J3r. Neilson, at the time he received the last fifty shares of stock, received 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 acco7unt.
He received no bonds with that stock.
Q. Did he receive the bonds subsequeuntly?-A. No, sir; nor subsequently.




152                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q.  You stated, I think, that if he had received the bonds there would
be an entry, of your purchase of them from the Union Pacific Railroad l-A. Yes, sir; but there is no entry of any having been received
on that day, nor from the 27th of February to the 15th 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 entryv?-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 relationl to it?-A. No7
none whatever.
Q. The erasure is is in the name in both cases where it appearsr -A.
Yes, there is an erasure, and thename of Charles iH. Neilsoin is written
over the erasure.
Q. Are these entries posted on some other book — A. Yes, posted
upon the bookl called the capital-stock book.
Q. Have you that book here — A. Yes, sir; it shows simply that
$5,000 cash was received -March 11. No name is given. I want to explain that these books were not written up by me as the transactions
occurred. They wmere 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.  o,
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. WVould you carry transactions of this sort in your mlemory? —A. i
had the check deposited or the money deposited, whatever it was and
I had the certified entry here.
Q. Any other memoranda f-A. No, sir. Let me explain that during
most of this time I had other business, and that I wotnld have gladly
been out of this concern if it had not been for some of the gentlemea
connected with it.
Q. You have no'recollection at all in reference to these  erasures --
A.  None wrhatever.
Q. As that erasure was in the place where the name should be written, would not you naturally infer that some other naine   was written
in the place of Neilson?-A. No, sir; I would not. I.might hake written in something else.
Q. But it would have been a nalme, would it not? -'A. lNo 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 proba ble, 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. WVould you not infer from. the appearance of this that the name
NTeilson, was not written at the same timne that the other portions of the
entry wvere?-A. 1t is very likely; it may not have been.
Q. And you think 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. In 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
)alrt of the original entry. -A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the erasure, and 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,
sir; 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  anae of
Chilarles H. Neilson?-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 e.-A. If I wrote in the name of James Brooks, I had no authority
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. WThy would you change the books of the company without instructions from anybody?-A. Because I kept the books.
Q. Is not the erasure of a name and the substitution of another name
the falsification of your record f-A.. That depends altogether upon how
the courts would take such things, IJ sdlppose. I am not legal enough
to know what the courts would do.
By Mr. Biooics:
Q. Did I ever give you any request or direetion to make any entry in
that book in an  form?-A.  No, sir.




154                     CREDIT MOIBILIER.
Q. Did you ever know me as the owner of anLy stock in the Credit
Mobilier — A. No, sir.
Q. If I had given you any direction to nmake any such erasure:as
that, would you have made it?-A. I think I would h-ave made it if you
had given me any instructions. I male the erasure because it was
entered wrong.
Q. Is it possible that you could have entered mny,name as the owner
and then have substituted Mr. Neilson's for it?-A. - tt is possible, of
course, that I might have done so.
Q. Have you the least recollection of having done it? —A. N, sir; I
have not.
Q. Everything is possible; is it probable that you would lhave done
it?-A. From Mr. Neilson's intimate connection with you it mliay 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 Mt1r. Neilson 2-A. I slhould have
made a mistake if I had written your nalme there, because the stock was
issued to Neilson.
Q. Would you not hbve been as likely to have written some other
name as to have written mine?-A. I cannot say whether I sihould or
not.
Q. Is it not probable that Mr. Neilson's name being often pronouncedNelson you may have misspelled the name and corrected it?-A. ] 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. BRoocs. I w-ant to say that is the first time I ever heard of the
thing in any form.
By 3r. MCCLARY:
Q. Do your books show the persons who received first-mortgage bonds
in connection with the addition of stock that was issued?-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? —A. No, sir; nobody received firstmortgage bonds upon that particular stock at all. He m:ust have taken
the stock just as it was and paid for it.
Q. Had Mr. Durant any first-mortgage bonds to dispose of in connection with the stock he controlled — A. Mr. Durant took the first-mortgage bonds on all his subscriptions and the increase, the sam e as every
other stockholder.
Q. Was the fifty shares of Neilson considered a part of Durant's increase?-A. I cannot say as to that.
Q. I understood Mr. Crane to say that Mr. Neilson got his first-mortgage bonds and fifty shares of additional stock from Durant. Do the
books show that I —.. No, sir; the bookS d(o not show his transaction
in regard to his original subscription, because he got the stock from Mr.
Durant.
WTASHINGt TON, D. C., Jcnua'ry 14i 1873.
HENt;RY C. CRANE sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question., State your residence.-Atnswer. I reside at Yonkers, but do
business in the city of New York.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     155
Q. State if you have been connected in any way with the Union
Pacific Railroad Company — A. I was director for a short time.
Q. For what period of time?-A. The books will,show. I do not recollect.
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 Mobilier.-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
Mffobilier e-A. Shortly after the company removed to New York. The
books will show.
Q. As early as it had anything todo with the Pacific Railroad?-A.
About the time of the commencement.
Q. WVere you an officer of that company? —A. I was assistant treasurer of the Credit Mobilier.
Q. From what time to what times? A. From about the d(late of its
removal to New York until the time ~Mr. Ham took possession of the
office.
Q. Then you preceded him in office, 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 Jaunary, 1868, for $3,000, and my impression is that I delivered to Mr.
Brooks, or somebody for him, $5,000 first-mortgage bonds of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, and transferred to Mr. Neilson two hundred
shares of the Union Pacific Railroad stock and one hundred shares of
Credit Mobilier stock.
Q. Now, state to the committee all you know in reference to the negotiation 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 Railroad stock, and on the
same day, December 24, gave to Mr. Brooks five bonds of the Union
Pacific Railroad stock.
Q. Was this the stock that belonged to Mr. Durant?-A. It was. 1
was IMr. 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 about 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 recollection 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 depositbook 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 Railroad, and two hundred shares Union Pacific Railroad
stock. What was that for? -A. My memorandum says it was earnings
on the one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock.




156                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Was that accrued dividends? —A. I should say so.
Q. These one hundred shares received then was no part of the increase of 50 per cent. e-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 me his check and draft, as I have stated; and by Mr. Brooks's
direction I transferred it to MIr. Neilson-the one hundred shares of
Credit Mobiller stock and the other securities, as I have stated.
Q. What was the value of Union Pacific Railroad 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 MIobilier
paid 85 for bonds. I think they had not been marketed at all then.
(. They were worth at least 85?-A. I think they were worth 85.
t a. Was the $10,000 paid by I{r. Books considered by the company
an equivalent for the one hundred shares of Credit Mlobilier stock,
$5,000 Union Pacific Railroad bonds, and $20,000 Union Pacific Railroad stock?-A.. M{r. T. C. Durant gave them; the company had nothing
to do with it.
Q. Did you have anything to do with Mr. KNeilson about it?-A. I
transferred the railroad stoik 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. I 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?-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 MIr. 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. I know nothing about it.
Q. This draft or cheek you had from. 3Mr. Brooks you received from
him  personally.?-A. Ay impression is that I, received it fromn Ir.
Brooks himself.
By M{r. MEiRICK:
Q. Have you any kncowledge 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 memlber of Congress being the
owner in trust or otherwise of Union Pacific Railroad or Credit Mobilier 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.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     157
Q. You did not hold stock as trustee for any other member of Congress?-A. No, sir; nor for him.
Q. You 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. IDurant?-A. Of course. It was not my stock.
Q. You never did own it? —A. No, sir.
By Mr. MIcCRARY:
Q. What was your official connection 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. All this business of Mr. IDurant's has been
done by me for years.
Q. You mean, then, that in this transfer you were directed by Mr.
Durant?I-A. I suppose so. Of course it was his business, not mine.
Q. What were one hundred shares of Union Pacific lRailroad 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 R:ailroad,
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.s
Brooks?-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
Railroad Company.
Q. Total how much — A. That depends on the value of the securities.
If the Union Pacific Railroad 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 Railroad 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 labout it. I only know I had directions to
do what I did.




158                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. You had direction to transfer the stock to lMr. Ne-lson?-A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Did you get this direction from Mr. Durant?-A. No, sir.
Q. From whom?-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 in all — A. I could not without reference to the
books.
Q. W~ere 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. WYhere are they? — 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 I 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 in January, 1868; I remember this. They came
along pretty thick.
Q. Refer to the list of dividends now shown you, and see if you remember 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 CHAIRMAN:
Q. Do you know whether this stock, transferred from Mr. Durant to
Mr. Neilson, was really Mr. Durant's stock t-A. I think it really was.
I think he paid for it.
Q. Can you give us any reason why lie 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.
IDurant'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 0?-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. Do you knowy 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 MOBILIER.                     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 Jlobilier 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 correct.
Q. The issuing of one bond for every thousand dollars of additional
stock of the CreditMobilier does not appear on the books as a dividend.*A. No; 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 appetite did not need much sharpening.
By Mr. SMITHERS:
). You speak of a draft having been given by 3Mr. 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 ajloan to Mr.
Durant, which matured the 22d of January, and this draft was applied
in part payment of the loan.
Q. On whom  w-as 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 wMhich was covered by this draft.
By Mr. BRooKs:
Q. Do you kInow how miuch money  I loaned 3Mr. Durant?-A. Yes,
sir; O)ctober 19, 1867, you loaned him  $25,000 for three months. This
obligation mnatured the 22d of Janua.ry. 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 before maturity, we reduced that $25,000 loan to $19,000
and gave three hundred and ninety shares Credit Mobilier stock as collateral. That matured the 23d of April, and 1 paid 10 per cent. interest
on that. T'he 30th of January we had $43,000, for which you had seven
hundred and fifty shares of Credit 3Mobilier stock as collateral. This
matured the 3d of Iay, 1868, and you had 10 per cent. interest. I then
reduced the amount to $40,000, and paid a thousand dollars a's commission, 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 haave 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                   CREDIT 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.
IDurant 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 CIAIRMAN:
Q. Can you state the name of the party to whom the sale was made
at 160?-A. It was made to 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. MERcRIcK:
Q. Was there any difficulty 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 M3r. BROOKS:
Q. You 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. No, sir; but I know that this check
and draft were in payment of Credit Mobilier stock.
Q. You are sure that was not in payment of the loan — A. I am very
sure.
Q. You say I received five bonds at that time?-A. That is my impression.
Q. Did you get a receipt for them.-?A. No, 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.
0, yes. All the dividends that were paid out of the Oakes Ames contract I paid and took receipts from the parties.
Q. You 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 MIr. Neilson'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 Pacific Railroad stock to Neilson and one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier
stock to Neilson and deliver five bonds. There was no need of any receipt, and there would be no record except in the cash-book.
Q. With whom were your transactions in behalf of {Mr. Durant with
me, in regard to these loans?-A. With Mr. Kingsley, your book-keeper




CREDIT  MOBILIER.                              161
Iost generally you came with him  if you were in town.  The transactions were done with you and the checks for interest given to your
order.
Q. Then my indorsement must 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 fMr. Kingsley's.
Q. These five bonds were part and parcel of the delivery of the one
hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock?-A. Yes; they are so entered
on my book.  I took a copy of the entry, and if you want me totl will
read it.
Q. I understand that you delivered one hundred shares, and also delivered two hundred shares of stock and the bonds, but the why and
wherefore you do not know? —A. I do not, except that it was part of
the trade between you and Dr. IDurant.
AQ. Are  you quite sure yon were cognizant of the transactions between
Dr. Durant and myself` —A. I know the transactions-yes,   sir.
Q.- Are yotu v\ery sure of that?-A. I have had charge of his business
for sixteen years or eighteen years.  All the money that has been paid
upon the checks I have drawn.
Q. May he not have made contracts without your knowledge  -A.
There may have been matters outside of his legitilnat e business, of
course, that I do hot know about.
Q. You only know in regard to real money transactions, but nothing
of the circumstances surrounding  them?-A. Nothing at all.
By the CIIAIRXIAN:
Q. If you have a copy of the entry in the books to which you refer
with you, you will please read it to the committee.-A. I have it here,
and it reads as follows:
ieimnoradclwdtm of loans.
October  )19, 1867, $25,000, 10 per cent., 450 Credit Mobilier of America, due January
2, 18568.
January 20, 1868, $19,000, 10 per cent,, 390 Credit 3Mobilier of America, due April 23,
1868.
January 30, 1868, $43,000, 10 per cent., 750 Credit Mobilier of America, due May 3,
1868.
nMay 2, 1868, $44,000, 7 per cent.,;1,000 commission, 750 Credit Mobilier of America,
due ALugust 5, 1868.
Auigust 5, 1868, $45,000,7 per cent., (certificates,) 50 Union Pacific bonids, due October
7% 1868.
October 7, 1868, k$45,000, 11 per cent., (certificates,) 50 Union Pacific bonds, due January 8, 1869.
Cash-book:
December 24, 1867.-Stoc'k account Credit Mobilier of America for transferring to J.
Brooks's son-in-law one hundred shares stock at par, with the five bonds Union Pacific
Railroad Company, and two hundred Union Pacific stock as earnings on the stock,
*7,000 cash; draft, due 22d January, 3,000-$10,000.!-'::i: Check-book:
Deposit, December 24, 1867, Fourth National Bank, James Brookls, $7,000.
Check1-book, Fourth National:
Bills payable, January 20, 186.8.-J. Brookls 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.-...................... 19, 000 00
January 20, 1868, 3 months.




1 62                     CREDIT MIOBILIER.
By Mr. BROOKs:
Q. You say the draft for 83,000 was drawn on myself.-A. I think it
was, but have nothing to show. It was paid in settlement of the loan
iii January.
By the CAExIRMAN
Q. W1ere the rates of interest paid by bTr. D)urant to Mr. Brooks upon
these loans as high as the ordilalry rates of interest for money inl New
York — A. I should think thley Were. I have not examilled, however,
to ascertain that fact. I looked over the books to see what I laid.
Q. Was Mr. Durant USillg very considerable amounts of' money about
thlat time, and pay:ing as good rates of interest to others? —A. I preStlllle so.
WASHI'-NGTON, I). C., Jamuary 14, 1873.
TiHO3iIAS C. DURPANT sworn ar.d examine(d.
By the ClAIRAmAN:
Question. State your residence  and( occnupation.-Answer. I reside in
New York, and I am railro-ad contractor,lnd builder.
Q.'Were your a stockholder of the Union Pacific ]gailroald?-A. Yes,
sir.
Q. One of the originral stoekholders?-A. I was an original stoclkholder and a subscriber to a very lalrge amount of the stock of that
Q. Were you also a director of that company?-A. I vwas also a
director.
Q. Have you been ever since its organization T-A. I was director
and vice-p!resident of the company fi'oll the time of its organization
until thle last rail was laid.
Q. Canl you state the time wheTn you ceased to be a director? —A. I
think it was in May or Jluile, 18ti9.
Q. Since. that time have yo.u had any connection with the Union
Pacific Railroad as an officer? -A. No.
Q. Were you a stockholdler of the Credit Mobilier?-A. I was.
Q. One of the largest?-A. ThIe largest, and president from  the
time it took tan interest in the tioxie contract until the contract was
executed. I was president unitil May,  1867.
Q. You were president of that (col)mpany from  the time of its organization as a contractor of the Union Pacific Railroad until May, 1867?A. Yres, sir.
Q. Did you continue to be an officer of that company in any capacity
after that time?-A. No, sir. Trle conllection of that corporation with
the Union Paclific Railroad Comlpany ceased at that time, excel)t to guarantee the Oakes Ames contract,.
Q. Were yotu one of the board of trustecs to whom the Ames contract
wa.S  assigned?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. lDo tyou coltinue to be one of thliose trustees up to the present
time?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. ])id these tlrustees keep books and records of their proceedings in
regarfl to tlhese trallsa(.tiols? —A. Tley; dtidl.
Q. HFave you these books?-A. 1 have not; I h(ave certified copies of
Q. Of everything?-A. I (do not know whether I hlave of everything.
I thiki the books were sent to Boston.




CRIEDIT MOBILIER.                        163
Q. In whose 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 7-A. He is chllairman of the.board. I think lie gave an order for them to be sent there.  I an  not,lositive about that.
Q. It seems that at one time there was a, quantity of this Credit Mobilier stock assigned to Oakes Amesthree hundred and forty-three
shares. Do you know anythiing in reference to that transactionl?-A.
I think tllere is a resolltion on the books of the railroad bureau of the
Crecdit M2obilier, or of the board of directors, giving a certain amount
of the stock to Mr. Ames and nryself:   I have here that resolution
authorizilg the transfer of $65,00() of the Credit Mobilier stock 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 Jannuary 4, 1868.
Q. That resolution was adopted at that date, was it — A. It was
adopted at tlhat date, and passed  by the committee of the Credit
Molobilier, MIr. Dillon, 3Mr. Alley, and Mr. Hazard beinlg present.
Q. Do Mr. Dillon, Mr. Alley, and Mr. Hazard constitute thle whole of,that executive committee? —A. I do not know who the executive conm-,mittee were.
Q. 1Who w as president of the company at that tihme?-A. Sidney
Dillon.
Q. This resolution  refers to stock held in trust by  Ir. Ames with
various parties.  Can y5ou tell us what that means? —A. I cannot. I
sptpose it refers to the stock of the company. I had nothing to do with
the compa-iny at that time, and I never sanw tle resolution till some tfmoe
afterward.
Q. Who the various parties were he held it for you do not know 7
A. I do not know.
Q. Did you have anything to do with these transactions, or were you
present ast the time the tranlsfer was made?-A. No, sir; I vwas not.
Q. What does the expression "als agreed upon by Thomtas C. Durant
and Oakes Ames 7" mean ~ —A. That, I presume. refers to the aogreement
previonsly made to distribute the stock on hland to certain parties.
Q. Were you present when that paper was executed — A. I think it
was presentetl  to me, and that I signed it, to distribute some of the,stock on hand.
Q. Have you ainy record or copy of that paper? —A. No, sir.
Q. You do not klnov 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 somne stock transferred to you 7A. Yes, sir.
Q. What amount?7-A. I do not recollect; I suppose one.-half of it.
Q. Flor what purpose was it transferred?-A. To enable ine to fulfill
e'gagements t 1had miade before that, time to let various parties Ihatve
stock.  Most of them I agreed with beftre I left the presid(ency of ttie
oinmpany in 1867.
Q. Can you name any persons- you had such enlgagements  with 7-A.
1 think I had engagements tor seventy-fix e or eighty thousallnd dollars'
-worth of stock, which I h:ad to carry out to a large extenJt froin mly own,stock. I transferred to Mr. Lockwood, I think, tive humlndred slhares, and
to Mr. Barton Jenks, of Philadell)hia,, I thiklk, some three luldrcd{. I
had engagfelellts whaich I was obliged.to colmply with, and which I did,out of' mly own1 stock, as I stated.
Q. Do you know what amount of stock w:vs transferred to Mr. Ames




164                    CREDIT MIOBILIER.
under that arrangement?-A. I do not know. I can easily ascertain.
I think some $30,000 worth.
Q. Do you lknow 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. I 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 naines of other
members of Congress?-A. I think it did.
Q. But you do not remember who they were?-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 26th 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 Iknow him?-A. I may have known him by sight; I dol
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 arrangenment between'Mr. Brooks and myself,
which was settled between us in that way, and settled without any regard to his being a member of Congress; in fact, I had no idea of any
further legislation ever being wanted at that time, and no idea of any
service that was to be rendered, or had 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
MIobilier 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 the company was to go on building a
portion of the road. At that time they had no c'ontract 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 froml the Union Pacific Company at
85. In order to get subscriptions for this additional stock, as the Credit
LMobilier had no contract on hand, (it had finished its contract,) all its
assets were not sufficient to furnish much inducement to new stockholders 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 regarded it as virtually watering their'stockl 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,
which the Credit Mobilier paid for it. That was the first sale of bonds,
I think, the Union Pacific Rtailroad Company made. About that time




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      165
many parties in interest were desirous of placing a portion of the stock,
a-nd it was about that time I had my first conversation with Mr. Brooks
relative 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 commission of 5 per cent. I went with him, I know, to one party, C. K.'Garrison. aMr. Brooks told me at various times that he was trying to
place it, and said that he would lile to take fifteen or twenty thousand
dollars of it himself. Afterward he spoke of having devoted considerable time to the matter, and asked me if I could not give him this stock
so that it wduld date back. That I could not do under the circumstances. The stockl 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 him one hundred shares
of Credit Mobilier stock at par, and with the one hundred shares to
give $20,000 Union Pacific  Railroad stock anid $5,000 Union Pacific
Railroad bonds. I preferred to do that rather than to give him what
he claimed, two hundred shares of stock. About that time he 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 lPacific Company, and it
was transferred to Mr. Neilson, by his instructions, without ever being
in his own name.
Q. Have you had any negotiation with Mir. Neilson on the subject?A. 0, no.
Q. The whole transaction was with:MNr. Brooks? -A. Tlje whole transaction -was with Mr. Brooks. At that time I had no idea that we should
ever be before Congress for anythinlg; and the transfer of this stock
had nothing whatever to do with any past or future services in Congress.
Q. From whoml did you receive payment for the one hundred shares?A. Mr. Brooks made the payment to MIr. 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 Neilson as Neilsonis 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 IMr. Neilson.
Q. From the negotiation you had with iMr. Brools did you understand that the stock really became the stock of Mr. Brooks when yo-u
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 Neilsonl -A. 0, nothing at all. I
did not see Neilson.
Q. Did you ever have anything to. do with zNeilson?-A. The only
time I ever had anything to do with Neilson was after I had returned
from Europe,. when he came and asked about the dividends on the fifty
slhares. I asked him what fifty shares; that he had no business with
anyT fifty shares; that I had settled up everything he was entitled to.
Q. Upon the one hundred shares you transferred to MTr. Brooks had
you taken the,50 per cent. addition to which you were entitled? —A. I
think so. I trlansferred my own stock —stock that was transferred to
me from the company in the same way tlhat my other stock was. I:have a copy of the transfer-books here, I think..
Q. What I want to get at is whether each original stockholder was,




1GG                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
entitled to take 50 per cent. additional stock?.-A. Yes, sir, within e,
certain time.
Q. Had you taken all the additional stock to which you were entitled
on the stock you had?-A. I think so; on all the stock that stood in inmy
name.
Q. When you transferred the one o lhundred shares to iMr. 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?-A. If it stood jI i myv
namae I had.
Q. But it did stand in your name, did it not n -A. It did.
Q. kSo that no right passed over to him  to  have that atddtiona lI
stock?-A. 0, no.
Q. Do you know an-ythino, in regard to his receiving fifty sh ares of
stock subsequently' —A. I do not. I was absent in Europe when hen
received it.
Q. Mr. Neilson did subsequently receive fifty shares of stock 0? —A. I
saw one hundred and fifty shares' in his name on the books, hnstecad of'
one hundred.
Q. Do you know whether, when he received that fifty shares of stock,
he received an equal amount at par of Pacific Railroald bonds — A. I
do not. I presume he. did not.
Q.;Why do you presume that? —A. Because I think they lad paid
out all the bonds. I suppose the fact can be very easily stated from thel'books.
Q. You suppose he did not receive it, then, because he was not erntitled 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 promnises Mr. Ames may have made to him.
Q. Did AIr. Brooks say anything to you in. 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 M1r.
Brooks intended to take the stock in his own name, but that afterward
his official relations to the comipany clhanged, and he had to dispose of
it, so that when lie came to the office of the company to pay for it, it
was not )lacedl in his name.
Q. Until the negotiation was completed the only knowledge you  had,
was that Mr. Brooks was takillg it for himself?-A. That was all.
When thle transaction commenced between us, I would have been very
glad to have had him take it, and offered hlin 5 pTr cent. to place it.
But the value of the stock increased very suddenly. The moment the,
Oakes Ames contract was executed, there werei $4, 000,(00 of profits or
hand. The stock of the Credit Miobilier suddenly becamlie very valun
able, and everybody who had any sort of claim. for it camne forwarcd and
wanted it.
Q. But to outsiders, who had no eliaiin, you wo1,uld1 notai,  Ihave sold the
stock at par?-A. oITo; but everybody I had ever talked with came forward and wanted it thein.
Q. How mnuch did ycot considerF the stock worth then?-A. I do not
know whatt it was worth at that time. I think I mnalde a sale or optiorn
about thlat time at 160, and it was Aworth a much higher l.)rie tien, as I
supposed.
Q. Was that the stock you sold to iMr. Alley?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thle triansfer of that was on the 20th Decembert, aceordilm to to lhe
books — A. Yes. It;carried with it a dividend wlhichl was made on the
12th or 13th of December. The books were about to be closed, and.,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                             167
everybo:y wanted to -et the stockl in his own. name in ord(er to draw
the dividend.
Q. IDo I uniderstand that yonu sold this stockl to It1. Alley at 160 — A.  I
gave himt a call ftor it at 1O)0   I:think it Nwas worth 200 at the time, or
more.W  when the tansft er was imade.
Q. Yo1u unditlerstoo      d wtat.ou plrted with that stock to Mr. Brooks?A. Yes, lmd simmply to settle wciat he clainmed as al oblifgation. There'was sonlc diiffreniee of opinion as' to how muc1 h he w0as entitled-to, and
][ pref-erred to give Mitn less stoek and give lhim a bonus with it.
Q. Can oyon state fromn  nlemor'y the aimount of dividends which had
been pa]id upon the Crebit Mobhilier stockr inl:l".?-A. I cannot; no, sir.
Q. Have you books  here thatl  nill slow  that-A. I lhave the trnstees' receipts Itbr dividend(ts   wh ich will show.  These books contain the
divi(len(ls nmade upon the mnles cotnra.c't, and give the receipts of each
partr receiving  the divi(lelnds.
Q. This bookc shows the first diEvidend was l)ecember 12, payable the
3d  ltanuaryt 188.  That xwas a di vidend up)on thlose one hundred shares
of stock you tralnsfierred to Leilson on the 26th December?. A. The
receipt will sholw.
Q. The book shows that Mr. Neilsoin received this 12th of December
divi(lend of'  $f 000 JUnion Pacific Rhailtoad bonds on one hlnndred shares,
anld 83,000 Union Pacifle Railroad bondls ol fifty shares?-A. Yes; he
was entitled to whatever  dividends there were on1 the stock standing'
in his i nae b}efore thle books were closed.  I repeat that this Mwras a settiement ini tlhe nature of a. compromise hNith Mr. Brooks, by which I
gave him  fitteen or twenty thousltand dollars in valne rather than all the,
stoc.k lte cla-iimned.  The stolk was wortth inltrinJsically twice its par value,
fronm the fact thsat, it carried vwith it the. riglht to participste in the profit:
of the Amies constra.t.
Q. The ntext divid(lend seems to have beein declared January 3, 1868,
payacble thle same day?.-A. Yes.  The stockliold(ers in the Credit Ti0obiIier w-ere, by virtue of ain agreemuent signledl by them, entitled to share
in ithe profits of the Ames contract.  After they had signed the agreemerit;, they all caine ine as co-partners, every mlan being liable for the
entire amount,  although he  ni,  y     have had but a single share of stock.
Q. On thle 0id of January AMr. Te-ilson seems to have received 82,000
Union P.tiifiTe Railroad boilis (n this onie Iundred slhares, and $1,000 on
the, -if —ty sl hares.  The othler dividleni s iollt'owing iwere on the 10th of
Jaaiiray, tthe Sth of iApril] a(r tl      n 17tin of Jurme, when he received a
cash dix ildend of $'),000?-.A.'Yes; bli t-he tertmis of agreemnent between
the 0 Oas Am es contractors, mand the P'acific road(l, tihle Credit Mobilier'was to guaranttee the contrat <and r eceive(.2-.per cent. comnnission on.
its  advUl':i' es   mionlly  to thie trustees   i  case they wanted it.  The
trusti es l  ushed form ard thle iro 11 ir1letty ilapidtly, and soon called upon
~the Cre(lit dobhitier'or a, im ilon. (1ci1ars.  Thec dit  not respn ed,  and
the a-''lvemlient wls ca ncele(i  witii the C (dit Mobililr.
Q. This Ifrp etr (dttd(i Oetotber I, 159 7, asgreeiiv;- to the Ain.'es contract,
vo n um-nei.ista:  to h ave bIeenI IrisJoned(! by -'t.. scil —..   -es;  it  was
assetitcd (to by all stic, l'st llc lm.
Q.  o. t.: (le r'eita d L l at tite   s; el;_ r1ep:est1ted  y i' tI- t:  slrl eer cibratced the etiis(e st-oC    A  Y,; Zes,
Q    t. Stt  ellee    ie etiv:tlend deuf'l'ar ]_iece' (C    1dS(;$,  ly9    G    nable J-al0muary 1, l89, fir th ree hnlldred sillres, wixas Union Pacific, R1ailIroad stock.-A —.' That is UnioI Pacific:btiil dl slochtl.
Q2. Was this the last dividend? —— A  That is tm  last divide:   ever
nma (e.




168  CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. W~ere all these dividends made by the trustees of the Ames contract — A. Yes; and they embrace,more than the actual profits on the
Ames contract.
Q. I understand that considerable work hlad been performed before
the Ames contract was executed?-A. There was a contract known as
the H1-oxie contract, which the Credit Mdobilier extended to the one hundredth meridian, 249 miles. The Oakes Ames contract was for 667 miles.
The Oakes Ames contract was assigned, if I remember, in October,
1867. I think the road had then 500 imiles built.
Q. Had'there been dividends upon the Credit 3iobilier stock before it
went into the hands of the trustees?-A. The Credit MIobilier 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 UJnion Pacific Railroadcl had not money to carry it on. I think on
the first of that stock which they toolk they paid 30 per cent., and sold it
to the stockholders at 71; the arrangement being that they would
pay I 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 adjustment of interest. After they put in 3Ir. Dillon as president they made
an adjustment. Some of the stockholders 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. Did the stock you sold to TMr. NIeilson or Mr. B3rooks have the
benefit of all these dividendsl?-A. That was all long passed. They
only got what this book shows. It was the Ames contract which im-ade
the stock valuable; but it was always supposed that they would get
some sort of a contract.
Q. You have spoken of your obligation to 3Mr. Brooks. It was 3your
Mimderstanding that by virtue of that obligation he was to have some
stock?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Something has appeared in reference to money transactions between you and Mr. Brooks. Had it any reference to this? —A. lNone at
all. At one time I was using considerable money, and borrowed tfrom
Mr. Brooks. Afterward the company were paying imuch 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 reference to
your money dealings with him'?-A. Not at all. I could not lhave told
whether there was  05,000 or $750,00 between is. All that was in the
hands of Mr. Crane.
By 3Mr. 3ERRICK:
Q. This was, then, a personal sale of yours to Mr. Brooks to enable
you to raise money?-A. No, sir I1 could have takehl a very much
larger amount for the stock and securities which went with it. It was
simply an unsettled account. MIr. Brooks had been very actiqve in trying to place stock, and I preferred to give him this stock and securities
rather than td give him the stockl hle 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.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       1G9
-WASHINGTON, D. C., JaZnuary 15, 1873.
Examination of T-HoIAs C. DIURHAN-T Continued.
By the C-TAIRMAN:
Question. State whether the Pacific Railroad stock and railroad bonds
were to go with these one hundred shares of stock which you made a
contract for with Mr. Brooks.-Answer. That was entirely in consequence of the contract.
Q. You made the contract?-A. Yes, and I gave less Credit M3obilier
stock than was claimed.
Q. If you had sold him or sold anybody one hundred shares of that
stock, and there had been no special agreement for bonds or railroad
stock, they would not have gone with it?-A.. 0, n0, Sir; the time had
gone past for all that.
Q. It was entirely, then, by virtue of your contract with fMr. Brooks
that this railroad stock and the bonds went with the Credit MobilieT
stock? —A. Yes, sir; Mr. Brooks claimed more stock, and, as a comproInise 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 difficult then
to get the stock, and I preferred he should have more securities and less
stock. This was not any dividend. The dividend-books will show the
dividends.
Q. Do you know ainything with reference to the original subscriptions
to the Credit 3Mobilier stock? —A. Yes, sir.
Q.' Have you a list of the early subscribers-the first subscriptions
made? — A. Beflore 1 answer that.question, I will make a statement
which will enable you to understand the answer better. The Credit
RIobilier was a charter for what was called the Pennsylvania Fiscal
Agency; some parties had subscribed for stock enough to organize the
company, and had paid, I thinkl 1 or 2 per cent. on the stock, but
there had never been anything done until the charter passed into
new hands, at the time we made the second subscription, which embraced all the stock. I think I can give you from the books of the company the first subscription, and also the second, which is probably what
you want.
Q. I mean the subscription after it was contempl1ated to have some
connection with the Union Pacific Railroad?-A. Yes, sir;' I have that
h3ere. I have a notarial copy of it, but this will answer the same thing
here. This gives the conditions of the subscription —the original subscription by virtue of which the Credit 3iobilier had anything to do with
the road. The conditions of that subscription were that the railway portion of the company should be managed by a railway bureau to consist
of five members. After these subscriptions were made it was suggested
to increase the inumber to a committee of seven.
Q. Do you know a man by the name of Alexander E. Laing'? —A. I
thinll there is a masn by the name of Laing in New York.*Q. Do you know him?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. IlHad he any connection with this matter in any way? —A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether hle was a subscriber to this stockl in any
way? --. I think I can explain what- there is about him. Some parties were interested in this Pennsylvania Fiscal Agency when I first
went into the Credit Mobilier. They had taken, a few shares of stock
before the branch was established in New York, under the amended
charter. I sent MIr. Train to Philadelphia. We wanted it for a stock
operation, but we could not agree what was to be done with it. Mr.




170                       cCREDIT,OBIsLIER.
Train proposed to go on an expandetd saale, but I abandoned it.. I
think Mr. Train got somelns subscriptions; what they were I do not know;.
they were never collected and returned to the compiany.  These are all
the subscribers to the Credit Mobilier.
Q. That paper gotten up) by Train you haCve not,.-A. No, sir; it
never aimounte,  to anythinog;   he may htave got some subscriptions
prior to the one you have, but lhe never returned them to the company; lhe
I)laced some stock afterward., All the connection the  TUnion Pacific'Railroad had with the Credit Mobilier through the contract was an ac1-e
cidental mlater entirely; the coimlpany attempted to build the road
themiselves un-tl they exhaustedl their means.  They then made what
was known as the Hoxsie contract;, but that soo0l exhausted the mreans.
of the friends of the enaterprise.  They then  started a subscription
paper to see it they could raise $1,6 000)000 to enable theimii to calrry on
the contract, as a mlnargin to complete the first section. of tile road.
The  subscription  reachedl the  announilt of $1, 600,000, andi 25 percent. was paid in. On the next call for 1an installment on the subscription the parties would not pay up. They were generally capitalists, and(
whlile they were willing to risk the money they had put in, they wou ld
not risk their whole fortrunes, and it was then suggested  thlat we wrould
get some corporation in which the indclivilual liability would only reach
the amotunt subscribed.  WTe fell uponii this corporation, and the l)arties
transferred their subscriptions to it.  I have a list here somewhere of
the orig;inal subscriptions, with' the Hoxie contract and all.
Q. Hav.e you anything here -which -wNill show the dividends declared
by the Credit iMobilier prior to the Ames contract?-A. I think we lhave
the books of the company, or copieKs of them, here,  and if you have an
expert he can mialke them  up in half an hour.  Tlheir dividends were
light.
Q. If you have a book, showing, precisely  whiat the dividends were
the comlnittee wou.lld be glad to  e*t it. A. T1he original book is iln the
other commnittee-roonm.
By Mr. MIEnRICKc:
Q. Be good enough to tell me what o-tlher directors, officers, andt pincipal stockholders of the Union Pacihie BRailload Company, besides yourself, were also (lirectors, stocklolders, or managers of the Credit 3Mobilier. —A. I thinl  there was none, unless it was AMr. Bushnell and Mr,'
MlcCorab.. Thie Hoxie contract extended 247 miles, to the one hundredth..meridian.  That the Credit Mobilier guiaranteed to complete in the fall:
of 186I. Through'the Credit Mo(tbilier taking some of their stoc  a,.t a
low price, and dividing or sellirn' it to its stockholders, other parties
becam —e interested as stockholdIers in the Union Pacific.Railroal  Compatly. They Awere,not original subs.rmibei  but tithrough their inlterest in
the contract with the Credit 31obilier they became stochlolders inl the.'Union Pacific Railroad Cormpanly. After that cointract was completed
they claimed], being then larre stockholders in the railroad com)pa:ny, the
right of sitting in'the bo'ardi and seve-ovrasl of these parties were eiected
a.i miembers of the board.
Q.  Can you state which wered so elected?-.A. I think Oliver Amines,
Ir. Du-ff and Mr. Dillonl were, amd IsevTeral otlhers whose names i (do6 not
recollect.?ar. Oatkes Anmes was a stockholder in the Credit Maobilier,
and also a stockholder in tlhe Un!ion Pacifici road. At the timne of this
election there Was a, collusion  between tlese parties who were ii both
corp3or-ations. I perlaps should not say collusion, but they beca mne amiajority ol tlhe directors, At first there, wVt8 no Contract;? the conetract




CREDIT  JOmBILIER.                                171
of the Union Pacific Railroad  Company with 3:Ir. Hoxie was transferred
to the Credit  Mobilier.
Q. Aftl;er the tranifer of the Hoxie contract, and before the Ames
coitract,  a majority of the  directors and  principal stockholders of the
CrediU   Mobilier becasne also  directors' of the Union  Pacific Rtailroad
ConmpnSy?-A.  I do  no   i know  that I can  say  a majority; several of
themn d(id.  It was subseoQuenT;t to tlhe iloxie contract anld a.nterior to the
Okdies- AXmes   contract.    They made no contract with the Credit Mlobilhe aifterward.    Thie  p     assed a, resolhition shortly a'ter these  gentlenenl
camne iin, textendi ng thie Hoxie conitract; t a  50000 a mile,  andl  ordered[
the Uni an Pacific' lailro8ad Compainy to pay that sum to the Credit, Mobiller.  I put an ijunction on themi on the ground that we were the i-nterested -,party in bothh eompanies, adll  had Iro right to make a contract
with  ou.rselves.  Thltat resolution  was  rescinded  and  tlhey afterwa.r&
malde.a  contract witth  J. A. S. Williams, of Boston.  Mr. Williams
agreed to transfer the contract to the Credit Mobilier if he golot it.  I
p)nt an injunction on that arrangenlent, which has never been dissolved~
Then came the contract with Oakes Amines.  In the coImplaintJ I inide,.i, as a nmatter of policy, agreed  to  consent to  anything  that all the
stockholders wxould agree  to, and  that contract was made provisiontal
on its receiving the assent of' all the stockholders of the Union Pacific.
Railroid Coinpay.
Q. Was Oakes Ames a director at that time,  or a large stockholder
of the Union Pacific Railrioad  Company ".-A. He was a stockholder,.
mot a director.
Q    n.   alsO s(o a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier,-.A. He was; lihe
was inot a director.  This contratcg was not let to the Credit Mobilier; 
it was let to 0iakes Ames, and assigned to seven trustees.
Q. I will ask you if you can state to the conmmittee  what was the
original  contract between you  nd Mr. Brooks  out of which  this nultimate settlement grex;;, resulting in the turansfer of 100 shares, to  which
yon  d(eposed  yesterday. —     A. It was in the foire part of 18(7 —in the
spring of 1867.  _The Union Iacific Railroad werec considerably in debt.
I t'hink dihey owed then fobur or five rnillion dollars.  The Credit i\ obiiier n-Iade a plroposition to them, throug'h their executive comnm1ittee, to
take about $6,004,00}0 of their securities.,I  will read the proposition if:on wish.  It is as followsTb. the eeelr ie  comeemittee of the Uinio PaSctic  Raiitroccd Compa, ny:
C]:Fn aiT:N' uThe Credit Mobilher of America propose to parchase of your (comipany
$3,0000000 of Iind- rant bonds at 80 1ier cent. of their par value; $2,00,00,0 of firstinorie,,r,(o bonds at 85 per cent. of their  iar valiue; $750,000 of thle certificates of the
comllpany convertible iito lirst-mortgiage honds, ut S0 per ccnt. of their face, tho said
cerlihicates to bear 6 per cent. iai;erest; until the filrst-mortga' o bonds are issued ari l
exclian ted.
They   will loan,' or procure to be loaned to the company, $1,250,000 on four months'
timne, it the rate of 7 peir ceint. interest per a1tnnum, mad'12 pier cent. commniission,  with
first;-  iorni - r,,e bolnds as collateral seeurity at,:ii;- per cent. of their par varieo.
Payment s on npurchase   iid l,,ains to be rlud  ifs follows, viz' 25 per cent. on or befinre February'2L> 1,' 67; 25 per cent. on or b efore March 15, 1867; 2e per cent. on or
befoire A1 pril 5 1837; 25 per cent. on or efiure April'2, 1867.
The co.,nipany to proceed at once to issue tbh siid Iaud-grant bondl, and if re,qluested
so to do by the Credit Mobilier, slall issue certificates convertitble into the said bondsprior to their bieing issued.
This proposition is made on the express condition  that your company pay as soon ua.
practic:able the bahaice due on account of contract east of the one hiiMnlredtIh meriiian}4,
but whichl time shiall niot extend beyond the time of thle several paymnents hereii speci-lied in the purchase of bonds, and the further condition that tlhe present contract for'
which this compaany is tle igent shall be extended so as to includle 100 miles westward fro   the onei hundretdth nieridian as followk: The said 100 miles to be completedL
to the acceptance of the Government; commissioners for the sum of $,42,000 per mile.




172                        CREDIT MOBILIEP.
The same quantity and kindl of material to be used and the work to be of the same
general character as the work on the last 100 miles east of the one hnundredth meridian,
with the same guarantee as to cost of iron and price for Burnettizing 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 be
required, the company to pay for iron and superstructure.
The hotel at North Platte station to be completed according to the plans and specifications alopted.
Turn-table, eugirne-house, with ten stalls, blacksmith and repair shop, with stationary engine suitable for the purpose, two lathes, 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' superintendent; the contractors to pay the cost of transporting material used in construetion.
Payments to be made on the montl;tly estimate of the chief engineer, whllich estimates
are to be made as in the former contract; contractors to assume  all liabilities incurred
by thle company on account of the construction of said 100 miles.
B3y order of the commilittee:
BENJ. F. BUNKER,
Assistlant Seceltcrl Credit Mlobilier of America.
NLW YoIKn, February 13, 1867.
The executive committee of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
accepted that proposition of the executive committee of the Credit.3obilier, and the Credit Mobilier, in order to carry it out, imnediately
increased their capital stock to $1,200,)000, and in order to induce their
old subscribers to come in and put in more money, they offered 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 askinlg you about that.  I am  asking you for the date of
this contract with Mr. Brooks -A. Itl was about the date of the one I
uam speaking of, the payments on which were due between February and
iApril, I should say, of 1867.  At that tile the stock was of doubtful
value.
Q. You need not go into these matters; I want you to answer the
specific question.  The original contract out of Which this arrangement
with M [r. Brooks grew was between February and April, 1867?-A. Yes,
sir; perhaps earlier.  Mr. Brooks took a great deal of interest in the
enterprise, 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 finally said he thought he would take some of
the stock, say fiomn $15,000 to $,25,000.  The stock afterward suddenly
became valuable.
Q. Then7 if I understand you, fMr. Brooks took an active interest in
carrying out the proposition   or arrangement which you have read from
this paper, and thereupon he claimed fr'om  you the privilege of becoiing a stockholder in the Credit Mobilier? —A. You ma!y call it a privilege if you choose; we were very anxious to get anybody to takle it then
at par.
Q. 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?-A.
Except for $15,000 or $20,000.
Q. Was that all that occurred at that timne?-A. On several occasions
he referred to it.
Q. That was the basis of his clain?l-A. Yes, sir.
Q. You and he differed'about his demand, and. this settlement was
the compromise? —A. A compromise by giving him  this bonus.  He




CREDIT MOBILIER,                      17 37
wanted $20,000, and claimed he was entitled to $20,000 of the Credit
A1 obilier stock.
Q. And what did you do — A. I do not know. I had several conversations with him, and finally made a settlement as I have stated.
Q. Did you concede his claim or deny it?-A. I couceded his claim,
by compromising it.
Q. Did you before the compromise?-A. I thought he did not fix a
sumn sufficiently definite.
Q. What was your position? —A. Aly position was to get off with letting him have just as little as I could.
Q. He claimed that he was entitled to $20,000 of stock, and out e~
that grew the compromlise?-A. I gave him a bonus, as I have stated,
and ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock.
Q. Was his clailn such that he looked to you to give it to him inmdivildually, or was the contract you made to be liquidated between himl
and the company?2-A. I was president of the company at the time it
was first talked of; and, I supposed, was the 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 only in the character of president of the company, that you made
a promise by which you in your individual character llade this ultimate
adjustment with himf?-A. I had to settle most of these agreements
out of my own stock. I was not president at time of settlement. I
got from the company what they would allow me, an  had to make it
up out of my own stock.
Q. Did you consider yourself as personally obligated for this'arrangement made by you as president of the conmpany f-A. Certainly I did.
I had talken 8600,000 of the stock, which was increased to $900,000. IE
had spoken to a great many parties, and most of them were willing to,
take it after it had got to be a good thing.
Q. Were there any other members of Congress than Mr. Brooks, withinl
your knowledge,'concerned in the stock of the Credit Mobilierf-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 in 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 inlformation from other sources which would enable
the committee to arrive at a knowledge of such transactions f-A. I am,
sure I do not know where aMr. Ames placed his stock. I only know
what I saw on the books.
Q. You have no information, as! understand, from other sources,
which you could communicate to the committee that would enable themr
to ascertain any connection on the part of any other member of Congress with the Credit Mobilier f —A. The stock that stands in the name
of Mr. Ames, as trustee, I claim belongs to the company yet, aind I have
a summons in a suit in my pocket waiting to catch him in New York, to
serve the papers.
[By Mr. NEBLACI:
Q. It seems that B. I. Boyer, a former member of Congress froam the
State of Pennsylvania, was one of the stockholders whose naime appears
on the books. How did he become a stockholder f-A. I met Mr. Boyer
on an excursion over the road in 1_866, about the time we were finishing




174                        CREDIT MOBILIER..up the first contract.  Mir. Boyer said lhe thought he would like to invest a tew thousand dollars in the enterprise if he could make more
than his interest out of it; that he had some Government bonds that
ble coul (ldis-pose of to raise tlhe money.  I promlised him, somen stock.
Hae alypliedl several times for it.  I rather hesitated in giving it to him,
fearing that as he was emnbarking in it on imly advice, and as things
lookedl ratler blue at thalt time7, he might be disappointed.  A.t any rate,
1 did lnot giw\  it to him till several months afterward.
Q. t1ow 1  Mluhll did von let hiam ha\ve eventually?-A. I think it was
fifty slihlres.  I-e took it at the same price we were then trying to sell it
at to otil-, lr p.';-ties.
Q. At aboutl what period did he becomle the ownerof this stock which.
-was tra.stlelrie(l to him?,-A. He was Nvirtually the owner from the time
I promnlised it to limlr.  THe lmade arrangements to send me the securities
as soo0I as I notified hint I wanted them.
Q. About whlt time did you transfer this stock to him? —A. I think
it was tralsfTerred to lhim in December, 1867.  I am not positive of that.
We c'losed ulp 1ll our obligations as falr as we could as solon as the Oakes
Ames contract was made.
By AMr. MCCRARY:
Q. How n-mlch stock in all was put into your lands to distr1ibute?A. I tllink -1about a quarter of what I had promised.  Whenl the first injunction was lput o0  the Union Pacific Bailro1ad algainst letting a contract to thiemnselves, I was vice-president of one company and president
of the othler.  Of (course alter that they had( no further use for tle in
thie Credit 3lofbilier Cotplllyl. I hlad pronmised this stock at that titme,
a portion of it, in fiact all of it. There was a balance of my subscription
nnissuetl, atnd tllouglll it was paid for, they issuted these six hundred or
seven hundrled shares, land the certificates were left with the assistant
treasurer to be used to fill my contracts.  After I left the presidency of
the coimp,lany, the new officers demand(led of him the certificates, and I.
was thlertefre unabll)le to mneet my ol)ligatiolis with it.  I allowed the stock
to be t ranlsferred.  I told the assistant treasurer in my telegramn to let
tlheml (lo 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 th(re anry otler stock left in your hands besides that $GD0,090?A. None for that purpose.
Q. You say you had not promised anyl of that stock to any member
-of Congress except Mr. Brooks amid Tir. Boyer.- A. Not that I know
of; everythinglig is on this list; whenever I delivered or settled for any
stcic:k, tllis list covers the entire nmatter.
Q. Did you mnlake (any promise to any of tlhe menmbers of Congress
besides these t     -wo -A. I do not remember of any.  If I elid, it will aplealr on seine of thle books.
Q. You di(d not lhold in yotir own name. stock for any member of Con-.gress A?-A. No, sir; I hell  lno stock( as trustee  I am quite positive.   I
tllinlk i  should( recollect it if I Ilad.  We werel tlirough with legislation
long lefiore ti-e Crelit iMobtilier cain;e up,   We had no idea we should
ever (comle to Cogress for anythingl Sgain.
Q. W\ereyou no t apl)rehlemnsive of a congr-essional in'vestigatioln?-A.
I was not.
Q. Do you kinow wliethler any of tlhe parties interested were?-A. At
thle timte wwe ladl thlese  ijtllctiions I imlsisted on not goig into a contract unless ib was alssentted to by every stockholder.  There wts sonicme




CREDIT   O3aOBILIE L                  175
difference of opinion about requiring the assent of every sfockholder,
which grew into quite a little quarrel, when I mnade the remark tllat I
was tired of law, and that I proposed to go to Congress, and get theml
to say whether they would allow this company to contract with themselves without the assent of stockholders. I had written such a letter,
and mailedl it to Mr. Washburn. Several gentlemen  then said they.
would not go into a contract without the consen  of all the stockholders,
elnd they received my order to go to the post-office and get my letter.
1 think Mr. 1McComb, Mr. Bushnell, and M1r. Crane went and saw the
postmaster. They ransacked the mail and got the letter out.
Q. Was it regarded by the gentlemlen connected with the Uniomi Pacific E ailroad and the Credit M obilier as exceedingly important that
there should be no inrestigation by Coligress?-A. I think not; we
were advised by eminent counsel that we had vested rights, anmd 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. You appear, however, to have induced the parties to come to your
terms by a threat of conlgressional investigation?-A. No; I am sisiiply
stating the history of this matter. I believe at that time Mr. Wasllburn
offered sonme resolution in the House. This was in 1867. An investigation would not have amounted to anything. It only raised the question
as to whether the board should protect the nilnority as well as the inajority of stockholders. That was the only question that would have
been raised.
Q. What was the value of the securities you let iMr. Brooks 1have besides the Credit Mobtilier stock?-A. I considered it in the light of a
business transaction. It was just trhe same as letting him have a hundred 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 oL the
securities in dollars and cents.-A. I considered that if he took two hInUdred shares they were worth double their par value, and' I preferred to
give him these securities, which then had only a nominal value, and in
place of giving him two hundred shares to give hinm one hundred of the
Credit 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 Paciic Railroad stock
worth V-A. Credit Mobilier was worth $200' per share. I h~ave been
told that a good deal of the Union Pacific stock has been since sold as
low as 9. 1 know of no sale at that tilme. I think the Credit XMobilier
did once nmake a price, and got their stockholders to take it when it
could not have been done outside at 30.
Q. That would be $G6,000 for the Union Pacific Railroad stock:' What
would be the value of $5,000 first-mortgage bonds at 85' —A. At 80and they have sold at about 80 —the amount would be $1,000. Taking
an average price for the stock, it would be $9,000altogether, and a
thousand dollars better for me than if I had given him the two handred.shares of stock.
Q. Do you know of any property among the assets of the U[nion Pacific
/Railroad Company, or the Credit 3Mobilier, being used in any way to infiuenca  legislation in Congress? —A. No, sir; none of the assets.
Q(. Do you knlow of money being so usedi-A. Nlor money.
Q. Do you know of any influence being procured in that way?V-A.
We consented to give up a valuable l)ortion of our fianhllise. I did not
know at the time how that could influence members of Congress, but




176                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
we found that we were meeting with opposition. Mr. Ames came to me
and told nie 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 menmber of Congress? —A. I do not know anything about that. I think you will find
that the Credit MIobilier 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 stocl..
The subscribers to the $1,200,000 additional stock received the. bonds.
Q. The same bonds that MIr. Brooks received sf-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 Ml\obilier an equal amount on four,months' time, which enabled the Credit Miobilier to pay two and a half.:millions to the Union Pacific IRailroad Company, and help then out of
their difficulty at the time.
Q. What you (lid with M3r. Broolis was substantially what the company 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, lhe would have been entitled to ten bonds of that stock. If he
had had one hundred shares of the increased stock he woulil have had
ten bonds with it; but this transaction with 3Mr. Brooks was a matter
of settlement, having nothing to do with what he would have been entitled to in the Credit Iviobilier. 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 worth of securities, according to your
estimate of them.
Q. Can you explain why the first five mortgage-bonds and two hundred sh1ares of Union Pacific Railroad stock are entered in your book as
earnings of the stock of the Credit Mobilier?-A. That is simply a term
used to identify the stock. It must be credited to something. I had
received the bonds uuder 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 would have been more correct to have entered
it as given in settlement of a compromise w ith 1Mr. Brooks in accordance
with the facts? —A. The paper you have is a memorandum. 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 imy estimates for compromising I made a mistake of
$500, wlhich 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. Bunooxs:
Q. Do you remember how far back our business acquaintance cominenced. Have you any- memorandunm to which you can refrr r?-A. I
have no memorandumr  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 road l?-A. That was in 1866. I had forgot.ten you were on that
excursion.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      177
Q. You knew me at that time — A. I had known you many years
before that. I thougoht you referred to these transactions.
Q. I mean general business transactions; did they commence, in 1866
or before — bA. 0, 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 L-A. Conversational contracts.
Q. Talks-?-A. Talks in 1866 and 1867.
Q. Did I or not make a great effort with you among capitalists in
New York to get the stockl of the Credit TIobilier taken, in order to go
on with 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 subject -A.l Yes.
Q. And George Law?-A. No.
Q. dpid not your engineer go. with ine 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 iMr. Vanderbilt to see you — A.
I do not know. Y7ou made efforts to have the'stock takeen, and devoted
considerable time to it.
Q. Did anybody at the time take it?-A. No; 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 theml except M3r.. Garrison.
Q. Did they not say it was too distant an enterprise, among' savages,
in an unknown  couLitry?-A. That was the objection made everywhere
nine times out of ten.
Q. Was it essential that the Credit Mlobilier stock should be taken,
in order to carry on the Union Pacific Railroad?-A. Yes.
Q. W5ere 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. Wrould you deeim 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?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
8500,000 at that time. That was the amount you tried to place.
Q. HIaving done all that I did, was it not natural, when the stock
became valuable, that I should prefer to have some of it?-A. Yes; 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 Railroad stock at all in 1866?-A. Some of them did and
some of them d(lid not. A majority would not touch it, front the time of
its taking the contract up to that time, and it was up-hill work all of'
that tim-e.
Q. What was tle 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 alnmost insurmountable obsta,dces in carrying onl the road?-A. They did.
12 x




178                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Did not these Government surveys frighten most of the capitalists
in New York from engaging in the enterprise at the time?-A. Yes7
sir. I am as venturesome as anybody, but I would not have 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 unknowvn 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 or 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 information I got gave
me more confidence than 1 could inspire in anybody else; that is the
amount of it.
Q. The chairman has utsed the word "1 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 embark 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. WMas there any contract other than that sort of transaction? —A.
There was no contract.
By MIr. NIBLACK:
Q. State whether the Union Pacific Rlailroad, 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 large 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?-A. For the purpose of securing the election.
Q. Whose election? —A. Mr. Harlan's; for the purpose of securing
the influence of some newspapers. I do not know how it was applied.
3M[oses HI. Grinnell subscribed in my name, during mny absence, to the
general republican committee,,$5,000, to aid in Grant's election. That
seemed to be pretty well past, to object when I returned, iand 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 congressional influence; do you know anything about that?-A. No, sir; I do
not recollect. I am sure I did not do it. MiMr. Harlan had been an old
personal friend. Mky personal intercourse with him had continued fifteen
or twenty years. He lived on a rival line of railroad through Iowa to
ofie in which I had long been interested, to be sure, bat 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 MOBILIER.                       179
WASHINGCTON, D. C.I January 15, 1873.
C. S. BUSHINELL, having been duly sworn, made the following statement:
I come here voluntarily, without a summons, for the purpose of offering the information I have, in the interests of all parties, and especially
of the stockholders of the Credit Mobilier, who are entitled to the information I canl give. I was a trustee under the Oakes Ames contract.
I was, with Mr. Durant, a managing director of the bureau of the Credit
AMIobilier. I was an original incorporator of the Union Pacific iRailroad
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 RMobilier was in the hands of Dr. Durant, myself, and J. M. S. Williams,
our treasurer. We succeeded in completing the road to the one hundredth meridian in the fall of 1866, 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. 5We 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 tile 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 prosecutedl. We called upon the stockholders 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, because of our financial necessities. In INew Haven I appealed tothe directors 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
Niw Haven to take a hundred thousand dollars' worth of stock. I succeeded 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 97, and in some instances at par.
WVhile I was thus engaged, Mr. Ames was doing his best to place stosck,
and did place a large amount of it. Where he was placing it I did not
inquire, so long as he turned the money into the treasury of the company.
That, however, was not sufficient 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 97.~ 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 that in five or six months we succeeded
in selling ten millions of the bonds, which placed our finances in a very
different condition.




180                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
In the mean time we had discovered that, instead of the route where
we had expected to build the road, by crossing the Black1 Hills we could
save millions of dollars in expense.
So that, within a few mlonths, fromn these twso causes, the stock of the
Credit TMobilier came right up from less than par to 160, their 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. W5e had made a great deal of money. He said
that he Lhad 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 had been reduced four, fie, or six million dollars by the
change of route, these parties vwere entitled to the stock. I justify  my
act in the signing of that agreeiment, authorizing iT1r. Ames to fulfill his
pledges, which he said he had mnade to deliver tllis stoclk, just as unhesitatingly as I did when I got Mr. Amles in 1865 to help us. I lid not
think there was any delicacy in asking Mr. Ames in 186'5 to advance a
mnillion or two of dollars, and Avhen he. got other friends in Congress to
aid in the en:terprise, I thought lhe had induced them to do an act that
every lnan il Congress or out of Congress ought to be proud.of. There
is no act of my life which I loolk  pon with so muchl satisfaction, and 
think rmy children will be proLud of it to the last generation. And when
I[ see my stock, through a misapprehension, depreciated toa'lmost nothing, I think it is time to set forth the true history of the case.
I have now a letter in nlmy pocket from one of our banks, where I haCd
sent fifty thousand dollars of that stock as collateral, within a week,
saying theey 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 rwho agreed
to take this stock in the sprintg of 1867 were entitled to take it, and if I
were a member of Congress, and had received such a pledge, 1 would
demand it.
By the CHAIRM21AN:
Question. At the time this stock was put inl 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 namle of. any member of Congress with
whom he had made arrangemnents -A. I have no (loubt the names
were mlentioned. I'do not remember thenm.
Q. You may have seen in the newspapers rlthe names of Mr. Colfax,




CREDIT MIOBILIER.                     18i
3Mr. Blaline, Mr. WVilsonl, iMr. KelleyT, Ar. Scofield, M1Ir. Garfield, MIr..
Binghlam, and others. Do vyo  remember whether any of these persons 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 knowledgre whether AIlr. Anmes did, in point of fact,
distribute any stock to any of these gentlemen, or to any member of
Congress?-A. I have not.
Q. It seems that Oharles H. Neilson,'f New Yorkl  a son-in-law of Mr.
Brooks, hacd somne of this stock. Are you acquainted with him?-A. No,
sir.
Q. It seemls that in December, 1867, he becaltme the owner of one
hundred shares, which were transferredl to him by IMr. Durant. I-Have
you any knowledge in reference to that transaction? —A. Not in reference to the imnmediate transaction. I know that Mr. Brooks did all he
could to place the stock; that le 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 MIr. Durant and Mr. Brooks in relation to his becomning a stockholder? -A.- No; I was not present at all at any such
conversation that I remember.
Q. Among the stock that was distributed, (o you know of any that
went to a imember of Cofngress f-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 relation to his becoming a stockholder in the company, or taking, stock
himself — A. No, sir.
Q. You knew he was ectively at work in getting stock takenO?A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you know of no arrangement or conversation in relation to his
becoming a stockholder?-A. Not a word.
Q. Subsequently Mr. Neilson became the owner of fifty shares more
by direct subscription to the company itself, in February, 1868. Have
yoUt 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 f-A. No.
Q. And you have now no knowledge except such as you have derived
from the public prints? —A. That is all.
Q. Didl the stock you placed at 97 carry any bolnds 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 constructed beyond Sidney a considerable way.
Q. Was it or not built out beyond the Black Hills you speak of?A. 0, no, sir. It was built a little over 300 miles from Omaha.
Q. Was it not built to the summit of Black -ills?-A. No, sir. I
went out on the line of the road to Sidney in the month of July, 1867.
I came home, andwas 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. N-IBLACI~:
Q. I understand, then, your proposition to be that these members of
Congress who had taken or agreed to take Credit 3Mobilier stock made
a mistake when they denied that they had any interest in this company?-A. I would like to make that a little clearer. We were placing




182                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
that stock during the spring of 1867. This increase of stock of which I
have spoken came before Congress met in the fall. When these gentlemen mnet 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. iDurant and
our Boston interest. It is Vbarely 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 gentlemen for not taking the stock,;and requiring or allowing Mr. Amnes to
fulfill his obligation to them.
Q. You think that, instead of denying that they had an interest in the
company, they ought to be proud of having taken an interest? —A. Certainly I do. Mr. Hooper and Mir. 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. MCCRARY:
Q. You reside in Chicago?-A. No, I reside in New Haven.
Q. You were not subpoenaed here?-A. No; I came here voluntarily,
for the purpose of doing what I could to get rid of the prejudice in regard
to this Credit 3Mobilier 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 yonur coming here?-A. No: that was a mere incident.
Q. You think the holder of stock in the Union Pacific Railroad Conmpany, or the Credit Mlobilier Company, would be a disinterested party
in legislation affecting the interests of the company?-A. We never
wanted any legislation after 1864. W~e 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 le let alone, did you not?A. Yes, I did; and I thought we had a right to be let alone; we hlad
fulfilled our part under this legislation faithfully.
By Mr. NIBLACI:
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. M/cCrArxY:
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 Secretary Boutwell concerning the interest in which you were largely interested — A. I believe there was; I believe Congress set Secretary Boutwell right.
Q. Do you think a stockholder in your company would be a competent
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 iRailroad Company, which had to be settled by Congress?
A. I never asked anything of Congress. I was in favor of adjusting the
difficulty between ourselves.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     183
Q. There was trouble, however, which was settled by Congress?-A.
Yes, sir.
Q. The two companies had built their roads side by side, for some distance, had they not?-A. Yes.
Q. That was a serious question, involving, serious consequences to
the company? —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 disinterested upon that question — A. T do not think the question should
have come to Congress 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 CHAIRMAN:
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, inll point of fact, the contract had been agreed upon some
time before it was reduced to writing. Did that stock go above par
until thalt 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 fromu building the road under that contract,
was the cause of the stock suddenly advancing in value?-A. No sir;
it was distinctly understood, long before that time, that the parties who
had put their money into the Credit Mobilier were, inl 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: fHow early in the fall of 1867 was the stock above par, —A. Early
in the fall.
I 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 December, 1867 "?-A. I remember one sale at $165, in the fall of 1867. I do
not remember the exact date.
Q. To whoml 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. Amnes 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, 1867?-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 hle 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 himn 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                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Do you suppose the other stockholders would f —A. I cannot speak
for others. I do not think Mar. 3llcComb would have consented to give
it to him on any other terms.
Q. At the time this stock was put into the hands of 3Mr. Ames, while
he was getting the consent of Mr. MCormb and others for that purpose,
was it then known that the stock was worth more than pa(r"?-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. MIERICK:
Q. What right ill the interests of the company Nwoduld any one have
had to allow gentlemen to take this stock at its par value, in the spring
of 1868, where there had been no previous contract made for it?-A. I
cannot see what 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 letgitimate interests of the road?-A. I felt something like the expression in
one of Mr. Ames's letters to Mr. McComb, that if a bona-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 Mir. BROOIS:
Q. Do you know whether I loaned the company 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., Jaznuary 1, 1 873,
J. W. PATTERSON, a Senator of the United States, from the State of
New Hampshire, having been duly sworn, made the following statement:
GENTLENMEN Or THE CO(DMITTEE: 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 Railroad had been made. The only legislation which has arisen
since in respect to it, the wisdom and policy of which any one questions so far as I know, is the act of 1864, which passed'during my first
session in Congress. I was not as well informedjin 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
somewlhat intimate friendship.




C REDIIT  IOBILIEr.                   185
Near the close of 1867, vwhen no man could have anticipated any further legislation upon this subject, and since when, if we except the
transfer of the office of the company to Boston, there has beenp, none,
unless giving a construction to a previous act, on a question raised unexpectedly by the Secretary of the Treasury, may be so considered,
_Mr. Amles carn  over to the Senate and proposed to sell me thirty
shares of stock in the Credit,lobilier. 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 M1obilier was, and he
did so. I then asked him if it was proper stock for a member of Congress to hold. He said he thought it was, as they did not expect to
ask for anyifurther 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 lMr. Ames,'" come to me, and you shall have the stock."
At that time I purposed to take the stock, and doubtless lMr. 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 consummated, 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 Mobilier.
I have been thus explicit because I 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 Railroad, 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 mlarket price in money honestly earned by myself. These transactions were bona-fide purchases,
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. I 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 Railroad.
I have never purchased or received any property of any kind which
had any connection, direct or indirect, with my vote or political influence.
By the CHAIRMAN:
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 sumnmer 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. Never.




186                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. TWere you ever treated as being the owner of it by Mr. Ames?A. I did not so regard it.
Q. The stock which 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 slhort time. I put
it into the hand of my friend ill 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 Railroad stock was held when
you purchased it?-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 inl
that region. What it was worth at the time I bought it I do not recollect. 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,,Ir. 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 reasonlable 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 MVobilier?-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 negotiations or transactions between you and Mr. Ames, in relation to the
Credit Mobilier.-Answer. I have no written statement to make. I received 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 MOBILIER.                     187
of Iowa roads; one was a bond of the Cedar Rapids 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 twrenty-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. Matny 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, containing a request that she would accept it as a gift to herself.  The
subscriptions ranged from fifty to two hundred dollars each, and were
minde by such men as Governor Claflin, Mr. Sumner, and Amos A. Lawrence. 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 I was the more resolved
on this course because a paper in:New York had criticised its acceptance. 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 hundred dollars, but as soon as I could I refunded the money she had lost
through my advice. In December, 1867, or early in 1868, my wife or
myself spoke to MIr. Ames about purchasing one or two more of the Iowa
Railroad bonds. Mr. Ames 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 IMobiier. I knew nothing of
its origin, its history, or its value, and would not have given fifty cents
on the dollar for it. I told Mr. Ames that I believed that much of the
money put into the Pacific Railroad 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 coneluded that $2,000 of her money should be so invested; and a, few weeks
afterward the money was paid to Mir. Ames, and a receipt or paper 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 offer, I asked him if any more legislation
for the Pacific Railroad 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 securities. Every one must judge for himself in those matters. My position swas a peculiar one.  Having learned in early life that a poor uman
cannot do what a rich man can, and that a lawyer can do what an unprofessional man. cannot do, I made up my mind, when I came here, that




188                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
I would purchase no property that could be a.ffeeted by legislation. i kn:ew,
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 84,000. I was doing a
small business, and soon found that I must leave the Senate or abandon
it. I closed nmy business, paid mzy debts, gave my wife a deed of my
home, and had less than $1,000 left, with 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 inade 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 TMr. Ames received the money, I saw something
in the papers concerning differences a.nong the managers of the Credit
Mobilier and. of the Pacific Railroad.  I asked IMr. Alley and one
or two other gentlemen what those reports meant, and whether legislation would not grow out of those controversies.  I told him that I
should regard the transaction as incomplete; that I should have the receipt given up and the, money returned. I said the same to 5Mr. Amies.
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, witll the original investment, belonged 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 tp, but I declined
receiving it, and would have declined hhad the dividends amounted to
$10,000. I regarded the bargain as incomplete, and resolved not to
consumma-te it. I did not know or suspect that there was anything
wrong in the trcnsaction; but I was as resolved to have nothing to do
with it as I should have done had I known it to be an inftmnlous transaction.
Q. I understand you your wife received from IMr. Ames $2,000 and ten
per cent. interest?-A. fMy 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 income 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 aceordance 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 MIr.
Ames; so that I am now, and ever shall be, $1,814- poorer than f should
have been had nothing been given her, and the investment with Mr.
LAmes had not been made.
Q. At the time you settled up this business with MRr. Ames and the
money was paid back, you.tpmean that the dividends firom the Credit Mobilier were $814?-A. I inean 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 tadditional sum, so that she should lose nothing by failinlg




CZEDIT MOBILIER.                       189
to receive the dividends?-A. I nmade it up to her by making the
account square with TMr. 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 coumpleted, I do not think I
was the possessor of property to the amount of 81,000.
Q. Do yon renmember the timle when this tran saction i7was closed with BIr.
Ames I-A. I am not certain to a day, but I think it was in the month
of Novenlmber 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 l —A. I cannot; I saw something in the newspapers
which gave nme anxiety, and made me thinlk that there might be something tlhat I did not understand about it, or that might bring the road
before Conglress for legislatioi. I did not know anything about the
Credit, Mobilier, how it transacted its business or made its money. I
had no doubt of my mnoral or legal right, or the moral or legal right of
my wife, to invest the little she h ad in Government securities, bank, railroad, 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 circumstaances and situation were peculiar. Entering Congress a Ip'oor man,
with lo capital, no business, no prof-'ssion, and no occupation out of Congress by which I could make anythingl beyond my salary, I felt sensitive il regyard to mo-ney transactions. I came into Congress in the
beg'inni  o cf 1855, and when the war opened I had saved, b~r the most
rigid econoy, tabout $3,000; and when the war closed my liabilities
were m, any hundred dollars greater than my assets.  I raised two regiments and two batteries at considerable expense; I had served several
Mlouths with General Mlclellen, always paying  my own expenses; I
was chairman of the Coin mittee oni Military Affairs, and my rooms -were
continually  thronged by officers and soldiers, and I can truthfully
say that no soldier ever asked ine for money who did not receive somethintg, unless he was intoxicated. So that when my wife's money was
given to Mr. Ames I was 1not wTorth a thousand dollars; and I would
sell all I have to-day, miy hunmble home excepted, for $3,500, and that I
have earned durin(g the last foulr years in writing  for the New York Independent. In this transaction with Mtr. Ames, I have done nothing
which I (lid not feel that,, as a member of Cong-ress and a man, I had a
perfect right, to do; nothing to be palliated or excused; nothing I am
called upon to apologize for to my fellow-men or my country; nothing I
must take into my closet and ask God's forgiveness for. In making the
investment with Mr. Amles, though the noney was not mine' and its
profits would not be mine, I was actuated by no improper motives; and
the moment I saw there was a bare possibility T 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 innocence, I feel outraged at the charges which have been made a,gainst me,
and I believe no greater wronmg was ever perpetrated than has been perpetrated on many honorable gentlemen, who could iot be influenced by
the Pacifie Pllailroad, or all the railroads of the country.
By Mir. iNIncLAkcm:
Q. Let me ask whether this odium which has been created in the
public mind has not, to some extent, arisell from listakes which some




190                    CREDIT 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 in Hartford attending a
public meeting, and a statement was put in my hands to the effect that
I had been given by IMr. Ames two thousand shares of the stock of the
Credit Mobilier, which was said tobe worth, when I received it, $560,000;
that I was a very rich marin, andc could afford to vote for the Pacific Railroad. A statement was made on my authority that I never owned a dollar's interest in the Pacific Railway or any of the Pacific Railways, 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 explanation; that there was a lawsuit pending, and that, under those circunstances, I should say nothing, as it might injure them.
Q. On the supposition that it was an entirely innocenfit 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 mnotive and intent
than in this transaction;,-and it may have been a mistake for nme to have
acted on the advice of others rather than on my own judgment. I think
imistakes have been made in this imatter.
Q. (By Mr. Ames.) Did you not ask me, when I suggestedl this stock
to you, if we expected to. want any legislation in Congress upon the subject, 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. A-mes.) I recollect that you were very 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 have consented that mly wife's money should have been so invested.  You told me
that yout 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 Congress had purchased any.
Q. (By Mr. Alley.) I have heard it stated that the Washington corre.
spondlent 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 imputation I went to this young man and asked why lie 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 paper. Neither you
nor 3Mr. Ames, nor any other human being, holds now or ever held anything for me in regard to the Credit MIobilier or the Union Pacific Railroad. MV3r. Ames told mne, when the settlement was made, that there
would be, he thought, some stock coming;. but I told him I would not
receive it: tthat I considered the bargain an unconsummated one, and
wtould back square out of it without receiving any benefit froia it; and
I did so, as I have already stated, at a personal sacrifice.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     191
WASIILNGTON, D. C., January 16, 1873.
JOHN A. BINGHACI, a member of the United States House of Representatives fromn 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.4Ames. The first of these was in' March or April. 1866. Confiding in the integrity and financial judgment of Mr. Ames, and after
consulting and advising with him, I at that time paid as capital stock
into the Hubbard Silver Mining Company, of which MIr. Ames was the
president and John B. Alley treasurer, $2,000. This company was organized under the laws of Massachusetts, and had no connection witb
the Credit Mobilier or the Union Pacific Railroad 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 Mlobilier, assuring me it would return me nmy
money with profitable dividends. I told him I knew nothing of the
company nor did I know anything about dealing in stocks. IHe proposed to invest my money for me in the stock and account to me for
the dividends. I agreed to invest 82,000, and about the ist of February, 1868, paid him $2,000, for which he then gave rne his written agreement to account to me for'the dividends and proceeds of twenty shares
of Credit AMobilier stockl, stating therein the nominal, value of Union
Pacific Railroad stock then representedl by it andl 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 Falls and Sioux City Construction Company, on account of which I paid him $650, and for which
he gave me a written agreement to account to nme for the same.
I never received or held any stock of the Credit:Mobilier or of the
construction company or of the Union Pacific Railroad Company from
Mr. Ames or any one else. Mr. Ir. Ames was the only person known to,
me in these contracts. I contracted with hiln 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, I doubted my
right to buy, as I did then buy and pay for, thirty shares of the stock
of the HarrisoDn National Banlk, located at the place of my residence.
In 1868, and a short time after I had paid Mr. Ames the noney in
consideration of which he gave ne the Credit Mobilier agreement, he
delivered to me two bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad 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 Railroad stock, the stock being charged
by Mr. Ames to himself, at its nominal value, on the face of his agreement held by me, and the money indorsed thereon as a payment. In
the summer session of 1870, I requested Mr. Ames to close these contracts 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 contract, and took it up, accounting to me for the Union Pacific stock dividends therein stated at their nominal value, and which nominal value3
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, fobr
which sum he gave me a memorandum, and which stunm he paid about
February or M3larch, 1871, amounting, with interest, to $1,630.14. I wish
to say here that I accept iMr. Ames's statement made to the committee, that




192                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
he in his settlemnent with me in December, 1870, adjusted the ralue of the
Union Pacific lailroad Company stock at 19 cents, or $190 on the $1,000.
MIy recollection was and is that he adcjusted it upon the basis of IS cents, or
$180 upon the $1,000, but I accept his statement in that regard. Since
that settlement, I have had no interest, direct or indirect, in the Credit
Mlobilier stock, or in the stock. of the Union Pacific Rlailroad Company. I
sold the two railroad bonds, as my bank account shows, 23d August,
1869, at 88s 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 M[r. 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 accuracy than I have, but I do not hesitate to say that the aggregate
amount received on these two contracts Aas about; $6,500, and I am
certain that onl the final settlement of both contracts as above stated,
I received in alil $2,358.21, and that this sum  is more than onethird of all that I realized in all my transactions with Mitr. Ames.
IFrom the inception to the close of my business with Mr. Amies, I had
no intimation that aniy other member of Congress had any contracts or
dealings with him in relation to Credit MIobilier or railroad stocks; nor
that any other member had any interest therein, except Mr. Hooper, of
Massa chusetts.
I did not, at any timale during the continuance of these contracts,
hear of any controversy between IMr. Amnes and. Mr. MIcComb, or any
other person, about the distribution of the stocks of Credit Miobilier.
I never heard any intimation that Mr. Ames was dealing in this stock
corruptly, until Septeimber and October last, when such charges appeared in the public press. I never supploseed lMr. Ames contracted
with me for corrupt purposes, or on account of any person but himself.
I know that I had no corrapt purpose in contracting with 3Mr. Ames. I
never gave a vote fIor or against any measure in Congress, bult 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 explaining any of these transact.ions. I had done nothingE that in my judgnment 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 oil the Pacific Railroad to
the lien of the company's bonds,'&e., I knew that lamy answer was
in -the records of Congress, which show that I was. not a member
of Congress at that time. I had nothing to (lo with the passage of the
act of 1864. When the.accusation was made that the act of 1869
was only " a good done" t'he Union Pacific Itailroad Company, I
knew that the act would repel the slander. I make it part of my testimony. 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 Coongress,
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 whicl I have referred. I
desire that it may be incorporated into my testimony, that I may stand
upon it before the people of the codutry. 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  ay say say now in general that this statute
provides for thie continued organization of the Union Pacific Railroad




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       193
Company by authorizing an eleetion of a board of' directors at Boston,
and having so provided, it saves expressly the rights of the United
States. It provi(les that the President of the United St;ates shall withhold subsidy bonds to a sufficient amount to secure to the United States
the full completion of said road as a first-class road. It further provides that if the subsidy bonds remaininig 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 AttorneyGeneral shall ta ke the necessary steps to enforce the requisitioa in the
courts of the United States if need be. It further provides that inquiry
shall be made by the Attorney-Generail whether either of these companies
have forfeited their charters and franchises, andl that he shall also make
inquiry whether these comnpanies 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, institute proceedings.
I believe that I have now stated all that occurs to me which it is possible 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 characterizing the press I did not intend to include the general press of the,
country, and perhaps very ifw 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 fhlse charge that a price had been paid
to me as a bribe for my congressional aettion, and fixed it at $20,000o.
There is no color of'truth in it.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. In your statement;you say about the Ist of February, 1868, 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 you that
agreement?-A. No, sir. The agreement was a continuing contract by
which Mr. Ames was bound to account to me, and on which the payments fromn 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 wv tt I have
stated.
Q. You have stated in your mnanuscript all you can sta,,  regard to
the stock — 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 I —A. I understood
nothing from 1Mr. 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. THe 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 argreement
dividends declared upon the Credit Mobilier stock, and in the stock or
bonds of the Union Pacifie wRailroad Coimpany — 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 timue
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 $3t)0~, hich I did  I oulght to say further t;hat,
13'x




194                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
what has been stated in the papers, of this stock being 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 notice 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 MIr. Ames didlhe take back the
mining stock which you purchased of him?-A. I hold the certificate
for that yet, but there is nothing of any value in it.
Q. You owni all in that investment that anybody owns, do you not?A. I own all anybody does; if it is of any service to M1r. Amues 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 lhad paid for it? —A. Certainly
not. I do not mean to be understood that these two contracts had anything to do with the mining contract.
Q. How much did you actually receive from MIr. Ames in your settlement, 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 TAhbilier
contract. It was $1,630.14. I have stated that I received in all, on the
Credit 3obilier contract and the Construction Companly's contract, about
$6,500. That statement is substantially correct.
Q. For the Union Pacific Railroad stock; MIr. Ames klept 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 agreement, 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. MWe 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 jou? —A. I have said distinctly in my statement to the
committee that he accounted to me for dividends in money and Union
Pacific Railroad 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 M5r. Ames kept the money dividends himself
and indorsed it upon the face of the contract? -A. No, sir; I never
intimated that MIr. 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 paymnent by him to me, as already stated
by me. What he paid me is all I know of money dividends.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. You say that you paid him $2,000 in money originally, and that
the aggregate received from all sources connected with this Credit Mobilier business was about $6,500? —A. I stated that I afterward invested
$650 in a contract with him for $1,000 stock of the Iowa Falls and




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      195
Sioux City Construction Company. I stated in addition that I settled
for the Construction Company contract iii 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 $2,650, you received in the aggregate about $6,500? —A. That isjust what I believe to be the truth as to
the amount received oni both contracts in all. The payments were indorsed 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, 1869, which has
been referred to? —A. I think not. My recollection is that I either reported from the committee or offered a resolution in the House for the
purpose of enabling the railroad company to continue its organization
substantially, as I remember. Whether that passed the House I do not
know. M!y recollection now is, that the joint resolution to which you.
refer came from the Senate, in lien'of the one I have referred to, and
that I called it up in the House and urged its passage, as I then believed, 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 paAsed, and you understand, as I do,
that under such circumstances the best thing to do is to. stop debate and
pass 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 IMr. 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 except 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. MCCRARY:
Q. I understand that lir. Ames inducedlyou 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 3Mr. Ames, in whom I had entire
confidence, both as to his integrity and financial judgment, I did invest
in that stockl; 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. MICCRARY:
Q. When he offered you this Credit Mlobilier stock, had you the impression that it was to enable you to make up for your loss on the sil



196                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
ver-nining operation?-A. I cannot say that. I 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 riot
hold Mr. Ames responsible at all for the loss in the silver. mining operation.
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?A. I cannot say that I formed any opinion of that sort in my mind.
HETe would be a very bold man who, five years afterward, would undertake to recall the secret operations of his own mind. I think it would
be a very natural reflection, having lost $2,000 and interest, that, if I
had an opportunity afforded me of making up that loss, I bad better be
about it. Still, I will not swear that that was the course of reasoning
in my mind five years ago.
By Mr. NIBLACK:
Q. It is suggested that,this enterprise of yours in the mining stock
originated fromn 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 safie for
me to do it.
By the CHAIRXMAN:
Q. You do not -consider yourself now as having any interest in the
Credit Mobilier?-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 mloney-balance represented by a written
memorandum which he gave me, and afterward paid me, as already
stated.
By MIr. MCCRARY:
Q. You regarded the act of 1869 as not in the interest of the Pacific
Railroad 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 intendintending 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
fronm re-organizing.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. Did the Attorney-General institute, a proceeding under the fourth
section of that resolution?-A. I do Inot know.  It is reasonable to presume 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 RESOLUTION for the protection of the interests of the United States in the Union Pacific
Railload Company, the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and for other purposes.
Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Conlgress assembled, That the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Compainy, at




CREDIT MOBILIER.                             197
a meeting to be held on the twenty-second day of April, eighteen hundred and sixtynine, at the city of Boston, (with power to adjourn from day to day,) shall elect a board
of directors for the enkuing year; and said stockholders are hereby authorized'to establish their general office 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 Railroad Company than to hold 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 Railroad Qompany heretofore done or omitted
whereby the rights of the GeneralGovernment have been or may be prejudiced: And
3Irovided further, That the common terminus of the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific
Railroads shall be at or near Ogden; and the Union Pacific Railroad Company shall
build, and the Central Pacific Railroad Company pay for and own, the railroad from the
terminus aforesaid to Promontory Summit, at which point the rails shall meet and connect and form one continuous line.
SEC. 2. And be itfurther resolved, That to ascertain the condition of the Union Pacific
Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad, the President of the United States is authorized to appoint a board of eminent 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 allowanee of ten dollars to each for their services for each day employed in such examination or report, to be paid equally by said companies.
SEC. 3. And be'itfuirther resolved, That the President is hereby authorized and 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 the 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 firstmortgage 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 insufficient 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-nortgage 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.
Spec. 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 Railroad 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 employ6s of said
companies have or not violated any penal law, and if so, to institute the proper crimi-,nal proceedings against all persons who have violated such laws.
Approved, April 10, 1869.
WASHINGTON, D. C.,  January 16, 1873.
Hon. WILLIAx  D. KELLEY, a member of the United States House of
iRepresentatives from Pennsylvania, sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. Will you state to the committee, in your ownt 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 memoranadum and am here simply to answer such questions as the committee may
put to me. 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 F 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                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
sation about Tmy financial affairs, not then in the most flourishing condition. They are very much better now, I am happy to say.
In that conversation I stated that my name had been improperly advertised as a subscriber to the stock of the Credit Foncier which was
about to be organized by George Francis Train, to which subscription
zMr. Ames had referred..At this distance of time f do not pretend to repeat the conversation
verbatim, but I remember the substance of it pretty accurately. Mir.
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 became a member of Congress, and the provisions of the charter of which
I had discussed somewhat with my professional brethren, both in nmy
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 whom 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 the arrangement had been assented to by joth parties.
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 subscriber to the stock of the Credit Foncier, and requesting my attendance at
a meeting of the subscribers, Friday, the 20th of December. The postmark shows that it was mailed at New York, the 14th. I immediately
addressed _Mr. Cisco a note, of which the following is an extract:
4" 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, and
which I have no other means of ascertaining? Will you have the kindness to furnish the date of the subscription to the Credit Foncier obtained by Air. Train in this city?   An immediate compliance will
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 iu that behalf. The conversation between
Mr. Ames and myself was subsequent to the publication of that subscription, 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,




CR EDIT MOBILIER.                    199
MIr. Ames said to ie, on1 the floor of the House of iRepresentatives, 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 Railroad or bonds. I have never to my knowledge seen a share of the stock in Credit lobilier or in the Union Pacific
Railroad Company. I have never owned but one Union Pacific Railroad 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 Hutton
street, not due to the mortgage creditor, and which I instructed him in
my absence from the city to put into a ten per cent. income bond of
the Union Pacific Railroad, as an investment until the next mortgage or
judgment creditgr 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 Railroad or Credit Mobilier question 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, I 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 withhold it; that he had bden 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 proposed to hold any of this stock. 7When I parted with him that evening,
I supposed the conversation to have been a purely personal one, touching his interest and mine, and involving no question of legislation, and'
further that, knowing that the Credit iMobilier had been chartered, as I
thought improvidently if not unconstitutionally, by the State of Pennsylvania, although I believe the courts have decided otherwise in the
interim, and that it was chartered, not for the construlction of the Union
Pacific tRailroad, but of railroads in the South and West, I did not suspect 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.,lMy recollection is that he intimated
that the value of the stock w ould depend upon future contracts. Now,
whether I knew it was for the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad, 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 ahd say that, after what Mr. Ames
said to ime, that if I had had the ability to draw a check for one thousand
dollars, I would, perhaps, have made more definite inquiry than I made
when the offer came to nme on such terms; but I have no doubt I would
have draw;t0-n my check land taken the certificate for a thousand dollars




200                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
of stock. I would doubtless have regretted it, il view of the facts that
have since beenl 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 ihe 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 members shall be interested in any of the votes that must be taken. You
cannot touch legislation that will increase or retard immigration (withodt
affecting the poor interest I hold in land that was, when purchased, suburban, 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
im!pulse of Asa Whitney, to agitate the question of a Governmklent grant
for a railroad across the continent.
I have with me in Washington a copy of a petition that I aum known
by the old residents of Philadelphia to have circulated in the early
period of my professional life in 1845 —146, and to have spent much time
in procurinig 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 River and Puget Sound.
In the year 1846 I entered upon a movement for the purpose of con-yrening 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 Randall, esq., the father of my colleague,
Samuel J. Randall, spoke withI 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  usic, 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 invest his money with any such view in
one who, for more than a quarter of a century, had been an enthusiast
in tfle work for the promotion of which he wTTas supposed to be purchased.
Q. This conversation you had with 1Mr. Ames in regard to your becoming the owner of ten shares of the Credit AMobilier 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 cannot 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 tlat it was cold weather.
i. remember very well the placeC and the incident. I remember having
the thought for a  time that I 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 nme except the one to which I have referred.
Q. The conversation grew out of the fact that you had subscribed to
this Credit Foncier — A.. That I had subscribed, or that it was alleged
that I had subscribed.




CREDIT MB0ILIER.                     201
Q. The stockl of this company, before its charter was transferred to
New York, was rather fancy 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 agreement on your part to take ten shares?-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 Mobiller stock, then, was that you neither paid Mr. Ames anything nor
received anything on that account? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. The question has been raised by somebody in regard to that thousand dollars; I understand that you had borrowed $500, which you
repaid, and that subsequently to that you borrowed $1,000 of Mr.
Ames? —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
uncertainty 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 3Mr. Ames and asked himn 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. Amnes
at the time you borrowed the thousand dollars in regard to the contract
of the Credit Mobilier?-A. hNo, sir; when the publication in regard to
this matter first came to my attention, I was away from the excitement
of Congress, in the Rocky 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 ft in connection with
the Credit Miobilier 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 lobilier
stock, you would not have been troubled about your inability to pay it
back ~-A. No, sir. I have tested that matter in my own mind in another
way. I have asked myself the question, if that fund were garnisheed
by a creditor of Oakes Ames, and on the other hand by a creditor of the
Credit lhobilier, what would be my answer in court, as between the two,
which I owed the noney to. It would be a negative answer to the interrogatories of the creditors of Ithe Credit Mobilier. It would be an affirnzative answer to the interrogatories of the creditors of Oakes Amnes. In
that case the parties would be indifferent to me.
Q. Have you any recollection how long it was after this arrangement
or contract between you and MIr. Ames before you learned from Air.
Ames that for'some reason he could not falfill the agreement to let you




202                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
have the stock?-A. Upon my word, I have not. I have given you the
only two points by which I can fix any a.pproximnate dates in the transaction.
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. Bat 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 Union Pacific Railroad i-A. Not the slightest.
Q. Have you any knowledge in relation to any transaction between
M1ir. 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 12th of Septembeir, 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 hiving received
two thousand shares of stock in the Credit, Robilier.
By Mr. MIEIRICK:
Q. Did you 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. NIBL1CK: 
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?-A. I am very much obliged to you for asking that question. 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 financial 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 allhis property.]
By Mir. McCGAy~:
Q. You were to pay Mr. Ames nothing on the stock he agreed to furnish 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 me as a compliment on the




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     203
part of Mir. Ames. I had no suspicion of the transaction 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 sufficient.
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 presented a different question for your consideration?-A. If any such consideration 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 contingent interest in ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock did not occur to me.
During all this period of railroad legislation, if I had been disposed to
have perverted my position to a source of relief from my embarrassment, 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 MIr. 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 suggested by this operation.; Q. If you had known the character of these letters, would you have
purchased the stock?-A. If I had read the letters, 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 proposition implies a depth of, stupidity that I cannot attribute to lMr. 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 referred 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 contact 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 Baltimore, 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 eompany, 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 I did, the tax on transportation 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, therefore, that the natural tendency of a personal interest in a matter of
legislation would be to induce meu bers to lean against their personal
interest than otherwise.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. Does not a rule of the House forbid a niember voting upon a measnure 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 Mlr. M3CCIRARY:
Q. Would you regard a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad 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 it should be
left, as it is by parliamentary law, to the judgment of each member, subject 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., Jacnuary 16, 1872.
GLENNI W. SCOFIELD a member of the United States House of Representatives 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 MSr. Ames some bonds on the Cedar
Rapids and Missouri Raliroad. In December, 1867, I spoke to him
about getting more. He suggested that I should take this Credit Mobilier stock.  He explained that it was a contracting company, incorporated 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
afterNew Yeairs. Some time after, when I met Mr. Ames and sp oke 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 him the money thep, and he would ascertain and get it if he could. I gave him the money and took his receipt.




CREDIT - MOBILIER..205
This was the last of January. He subsequently informed me that he
could get the stock, but it was in a larger block, and he would have to
get it divided.
Either at this time 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 I gave him his receipt. This was duriag that same session
of Congress, more than four years ago.
I do not recollect of any legislation pending or in prospect at this
time that Mr. Ames was interested in. 1 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 CHAIRAIAN:
Question. Will you state the time when this matter was adjusted between you and Mr. Ames finally  -Answer. 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. Whatwere -the securities that you finally received from Mr. Aines?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 dollars he had received. In fact, I paid him more than the thousand
at first. There was a small premium charged upon the stock. I anm
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 previous 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  -A. [ do not think he did.
If the value now talked about was correct, I had no idea of it at any
time.
Q. You bad 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 l)ecember, as an evidence that the investment would be a safe
one, that Mr. Hooper, Mir. 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.-aA.
I did not. This conversation was accidental. It began on the street,
I think, while walking down from the CapitolB-we boarded together



206                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
and was continued at the table. I had boarded with Mr. Ames considerably since I had been in Congress.
By Mr. MLERRICI':
Q. You say that finally an arrangement was. made between you and
Mr. Ames, by which, instead of taking the Credit MAobilier stock, you
were to take certain bonds. What bonds were they?-A. The bonds of
the Union Pacific iRailroad Company.  I took one bond of a thousand
dollars, and ten shares of Union Pacific Railroad stockl, and paid him
the difference.  I paid him $230, I think, over and above what I had
paid before.  That is my recollection.  I think I paid him $200 in
money, and cut off one of the coupons on the bond.  I never had the
Credit MIobilier stock at all, and never considered myself as having any
interest in the corporation. I gave him $1,041 to see if he could get me
some, but he never did get me any. He gave me a receiptforl my money,
which I returned himn when I took the railroad securities.
Q. These railroad securities amounted to how much?-A. A:t 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 summner 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 explain to you that the Credit MSobilier was owned chiefly
by the men who were directors and most largely interested in the Union
Pacific road2 -A. No; he told me that they had a contract front the
Union Pacific.
Q. Were you not aware that the members and directors of the Union
Pacific ]Lailroad Company were also engaged in the managlaement of the
CGedit MIobilier, and were making contracts with themselves, through
the form of a corporation called the Credit Mlobilier?-A. I do not know
that he did or did not.
Q. If you had known that the directors of the Union Pacific IRailroad
were making contracts with themselves in the character of stockholders
and managers of the Credit Alobilier, would you have become a participant 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. 1" Avoid the appearance of evil," is an injunction that, I think,
sometimes rogues are more careful to observe than honest inen.
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 Railroad stock at the time you received the ten shares from Mr. ALqes?-A.
I remember about what we called them.  itMy 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 AMobilier stock you
used to purchase these securities?-A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. }McCRARY:
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 Railroad?-A. I do not thinklof 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 influence anybody's vote. Ido not think
the idea would ever have occurred to me.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. You do not remember when the resolution of Mir. Washburn was
introduced, somewhere in 1867 or 1868, looking to an investigation into
the affairs of the Union Pacific Railroad Companly f-A. I do not
remember.
By Mr. NIBLACK:.
Q. You stated, I think, that Mr. Anmes wanted to get prominent Pennsylvanians into the enteil)rise. —A. I think he wanted to have some
Pennsylvania men in it, because it was incorporated ifn our State and
must have its headquarters in our State.
Q. Did he assign 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. lHe 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 Iinme of one of
them was Stewart, but I lhave forgotten.
WASH;iNIiNGTON Januatry 18, 187 12.
B. i. Bo0 mR, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania having )been duly sworn,
inade the tlloowing statement:
I appear voluntarily before the committee without a summons, because 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 anid
have so held it ever since, as the books will show. I held seventy-five
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 Railroad had all been voted before I became a member of
Congress, and the legislation relating to the postponement of the payment 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 Railroad.. 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 ggreed to




208                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
take. At first 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. Durant and myself.
I had no idea of wrong in the matter. Nor do I now see how it concerns the public. No one connected with either the Credit Mobilier or
the Union Pacific Railroad ever directly or indirectly expressed, or in
any way hinted, that my services as a member of Congress were expected 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.  should have been had I owned stock in a
national bank, or in an iron-furnace, or a woolen-nmill, or even a holder
of Government bonds; for there was important legislation while I was
in Congress affecting all these interests, but no legislation whatever
concerning the Credit Mobilier. I can therefore find nothing in my conduct in that regard toregegret. 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, my only regret is
that it was no larger in amount.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. Was this a purchase by you firom Dr. Durant, or did you
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 rmade 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 1866?-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 Ciredit Mobilier was in some way connected with the Union Pacific Railroad?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. That they were really contractors for building the road? —A. I
understood they were contractors for 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. Durant? —A. I do. not precisely remember how that was. I remember the
stock was transferred to nle 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 hi m, as a part of the stock standing in his name, or
whether I received it directly from the company, and at this time I cannot 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 tile 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 MOBILIERs                        2O9Q. Your agreement was for one hundred shafes?-A. ly agreement
was for one hundred shares.
Q. How did it colne to pass that only seventy-five were transferred?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 considerable 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 transfelr 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 1868 it was? —A. No, sir; I
cannot state at this time at vwhat 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 ine.
Q. This twenty-five shares you subsequently received to nmake up the
one hundred you got as a fulfillment of the original agreement? —A.
Yes, sir; and in no other way.
Q. Did you receive the same dividends upton 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 p ar 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 saime dividends
upon the twenty-five shares as upon the seventy-five?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you state the gross amount of dividends you received upon all
the stock? —A. I cannot just now state the gross am ount of dividends
which I received altogether. I have no doubt that I received the regular dividends as other stockholders did, and I presume the committee
have information before them which will enable them to say how mluch
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 asit 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 contracts for stock between Mr. Durant and any other men who were in
Congress? —- A. No, sir; I do not, except from hearsaSy.
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
14x 




210                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
transactions. But I have no information which comes from such a
source as to make it reliaible as testimony before this committee.
Q. Had you any informationl about the time you were making a contract with Mir. Durant of any dealings he had with others? —A. I understood 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 11 ame.
Q. Did you know about that, or had you information about it, before
this became a, matter for public comment? -A. Yes, sir; I had information. at the time that Mr. Brooks had obtained some stock for his sonin-law.
Q. Did you get it fi'om lr. Brooks or from Mr. Durant? —A. I think
I got it from  both.
Q. If you heard MFr. Brooks say anything in reference to it, we would
be glad to have, you state it.-A. I remember when lMr. Brooks was
appointed al Government director in the UJUnion Pacific Railroad Company 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 Government director in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and I declined,
on the ground, I thought it was incompatible with my position, and that
II would not transfer my stock in the Credit MVfobilier for the purpose of
putting myself in a position to take an. appointment.
Q. In that conversation, did SMr. Brooks say anything in reference to
how he had qualified himself I-A. No, sir; he simiply 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 son-in-lawv, Neilson?-A.
He did say his son-in-law, N1ilson, held stock.
Q. Did he go into. any 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 in the name of anybody
else?-A. No, sir. I have no reason' to think that any other persons
did than myself and Mr. Brooks, if MIr. Brooks did.
Q. Did you know anything in relation to the dealings of Oakes Ames
with members of Cougress in reference to stock — 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 conversed with Mr. Ames upon the subject until after I had become a
stockholder.
Q. Did you then learn 1 anything in relation to his having made contracts or sales of stock to members?-A. No, sir; I was not curious
upon that subj.ect.  I asked no questions and Mr. Ames did not volunteer any statement.
Q. Never, at any time, did you get any inlformlation from himn? —A.
No, sir; not that I remember.
By Mr. MEgERICK:
Q. You stated that you had no information directly which: would be




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     211
evidence before this committee such as you have detailed. H]ave you
any information which would, if communicated to the committee, put
thern upon the track of ascertaining direct legitimate evidence touching
this matter?-A. No, sir; I have no knowledge which would shed any
farther 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 tlie Union
Pacific Railroad 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 Railroad?-A. I remember that there was some agitation —
think the introduction of some resolutions, which were referred to the
Pacific Railroad 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 you remember whether they were introduced by Mr. Washburn?-A. I do recollect now, tha.t Mr. Washburn, of Wisconsin, made.a raid in Congress, on one occasion, on.the Union Pacific Railroad,
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 i)obilier 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 Railroad. 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 Railroad, 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?- -A. I do not remember much
attack outside of. Congress.
Q. I mean in Congress. —A. J do not think it created much excitement.
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 in Congress, because it was in the published proceedings.'WASHIINGTON, D. C., January 18, 1873.
JAMIES F. WILSON, h.aving been duly sworn, made the following statement:
Having noticed in 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. McqComb 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
I once bought and paid for ten shares of the capital stock of the Credit




212                     C'REDIT iMOBILIER.
3M'obilier of America. The par value of the shares was $100 each-in
all, $1,000.
The purchase of salid stock came about in this way: When 3Mr. Oakes
Ames was engaged in soliciting subscriptions to the stock of said company he asked me to subscribe $5,000 of it, which I declined to do.
t heard nothing more of this stock until some time in the year 1868the exact time I cannot state, butl certainly not earlier than May —when
I met in this city Mir. HI. S. 3IcComb, (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 MIobilier stock. I told him that I did not; that Mr. Ames
had once asked me to subscribe for 85,000 of it, but that I had declined
the offer. Mr. MIcComb replied that I 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 circumstances under which he had subscribed for a number of shares; that he
had made'the subscription in good' faith; that the company Iefused to
recognize his subscription, and were trying to cheat him out 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 willing to do 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 msade
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, "1 No; 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 M{r. M cComb, who said
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 m1 atter, and that I (McComb) know there is not."
I did see Mr. Ames again, who said that Xiur. MCo.(3mbr' 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 New
York and would see what could be donle.
Some time afterward iMr. 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,TMOBILIESt.                     213
told MIr. 2McComb he, said,  W Well that is another of his tricks; he don't
want to do any better, but if you insist on it lte will " and that he (M:r.
MscComb) wanted the stock on the 41 gronnd-floor," just as the rest had
had theirs. I had talked so much to Mr. Amies that I concluded to await
his mnovements; that anything further would look too much like importunity. 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'ailroad C(ompany and the Credit Mobilier relative
to the mana grement of the affairs of said company, and an effort was to
be made at the meeting of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in Marchl 1869, to change a part of the board of directors.
B3y opinion was asked for colncerning the rights of stockholders in the
-Union Pacific Compainy to vote shares held by them regardless of a
proxy, which was said to run with the stock under the terms of the contracts and agreements existing between said company, the Credit T{obilier, 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 amlong which was the contract between Oakes Ames, of the frst
part, T. C. Dulrant, Oliver Ames, John.B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, C. S.
Bushnell, Henry S. McComb, and Benjamin S. Bates. of the second part,
and the Credit Alobilier 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 Oalkes Ames contract,) in the manner provided in
the agreement. and some other papers not bearing directly on the question submitted.
I examined the question, and gave an opinion to the effect that
holders of Union Pacific stock could vote 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 h   from th1e construction
contracts.
Down to the time these papers were placed in my hands, I knewT
almost nothing of the organization and the details of the Credit Mobilier, 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 m-lanner have any
interest of any kind or character in salid comnpany other than aCs hereinbefore stated.
So far as 3Mr. Ames is concerned, his action was the result of mny application to him for the purchase of the stock. 1My action was induced
solely by the conversation had with Mr. IMcComb, who was actuated, as
I understood, by what he-denounced a!s a gross injustice practiced on
him by the company; and it was well known to both of them7 as it was
to everybody, that my connection with Congress would end with my
then term.
The reports of the testimoiny given before this committee, as published
in the newspapers, show that Mr. MicComb lhas testified that he had re



214                     CREDIT IMOBIL1ER.
quested llr.. Ames to let me have some Credit MiLobilier stock. Not one
word of this ever came to my knowledge 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 UnionPacific ELailroad. They had
pushed the work with great vigor, and under great difficulties. In
March, 1868, the chief engineer, in 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 ii.nder guard, and have gone to their work in the day-time 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
others "    *"   The graders went to their work as soldiers, stacked
their arms by the cuts, and worked all day with hostile bands of Indians in view, ready to pounce upon, kill, and scalp any unlucky or ne,ligent person who gave them anr opportunit;y."?  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 completed there had been saved to the Government in the cost of transportation, 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 firing of cannon all over
this country, when, in the spring of 1869, it was announced that the
last spike had been driven, and that the tracks of the Union Pacific
and Central Pacific Railroads 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 IMr. M3Coomb threatened to carry his claim to
the courts for adjudication was of itself calculated to prevent any suspicion 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, I
did so as the Representative of a constituency unanimously in favor of
the construction of a railroad to the Pacific. My predecessor had been
chairman of the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. To his efforts in
favor of the construction of such 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 Rivers. I desired to secure the location of'
the road so as to have it commence on the western boundary of my dis



CREDIT   0BILlER..                      11 5
trict, ~nd thus secure connection with it for the Iowa roads then projected and in course of construction. The bill of 1862,secured this result3
and I supported it earnestly. I supported the bill of 1864, believing the.
representations made as to its necessity to be true; I worked as efficiently as I could to promote the interests of the section, of the country
I was representing. I was the pronounced friend of such legislation as
would tend to develop that great western country. I regarded the Pacific Railroad as the greatest of all measures proposed to effect that result. 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 promote the
growth, settlement, and prosperity of the State. The result proves that
my judgment in this respect was not at fault. Consider what that country was a decade ago in comparison with what it is now, and I. sk for
no more perfect justification of the support which I gave to the measures of legislation which have produced the result.
I now wish to askl IkMr. Ames, who i believe is nuder oath, whtether 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 five
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 w-ish to ask, Colonel lMcComb, who is also under
oath, whether the statement I hayve im-ade in reference to him is cor-:rect.
MIr. ~1]cCoBm. Emphatically so, so far as I have any knowliedge.
Examination of Mar. WILSO3N.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. Do I understand that you claimed oTf slir. Ames that he was
under any obligation to you in consequence of hiS promise? —Answer.
0, no; none whatever. I supposed Mir. MeClomb was talking to me
abouit the $5.000 stock which MLr. Ames had as1ed me to to take when he
was getting the original subscriptions.
Q. All there was of that transaction was, tha,t lr. iAUmes wanted youn
to subscribe $5,000 of that stock, and you dleclined — A.  I declined
then.
Q. You did not consider Mr. Ames under amny obligation, legal or
moral — A. None whatever.
Q. And you did not in your subsequent consversation with him, which
resulted in your getting ten shares, claim that he was under any obligation 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
lMerrick 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. KWhen 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 amrendment to -that bill, which I placed in the hands of
one of my colleagues, 31r. Allison, and asked him to introduce it, providing that the company should not receive bonds for the road west of
the one huindredth -meridiai ualntil it should be completed to the one




i216                     CREDIT MOBILIEil.
hundredth meridian. My object was to secure a connection with the
Omaha line for the Iowa roads, and it did secure that object.
Another amendment was to secure the Government lien for transportation, and if I had the act here I would call your attention particularly
-to that provision. An amendment was offered by nme for that purpose,
providing that notwithstanding there might be a foreclosure under the
irst mortgage, the lien of the Government for transportation should still
remain and be enforced under the act of 1862. That amendment was
adopted, and becamne a part of the bill, and so far as the act of 1864 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 section 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 transportation by the company the sum earned by transportation for the Government.
Q. The substance of what you want the committee to understand is
that provided 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 lMr. Wtashburn made his very bitter
speech in 1868, to which reference has been made, he referred to this
amendment of mihe in 1864 as saving to the Government its transportation then.
Q. Do you, or did you know, at the time you h-ad this negotiation
with MlJr. Ames, the valne of Credit l)iobilier stock — A. I did not; and
I wish to state here, in regard to that, that it was a very difficult 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 w-hat
time?-A. In 1868, and I think not earlier than 3iMay, according to my
best recollection. It was after this alleged distribution of stock, that
I have seen publisned in the papers, to other gentlemen in Congress. I
-think it was months after fhat.
Q. Did M1;r. 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 adlvance, which will compensate for your neootiation."
Q. Did Mr. Ames in the conversation you had, which resulted in your
getting ten shares, say anything about it? —A.  No. sir.
Q. You had that stock at par? —. No, sir. I had it at par wad 7
per cent. interest; and my recollection is that 1 p aid interest on it for
seven or eight months, probably from the fall of 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 umay have been even
further back from the first of July.
Q. W~as anything said by 3fr. MIComub or Mr. Ames to you in relation 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 leariled of on e, because there was one dividend




CRTEDITr MOBiILER.                      2 17
that when I paid for t1he stock he accountl,1ed to me for. I do not remember what that was.
Q. You did not receive any dividends that had been declared to the
time you. purchased?-A o., sir  except as I have stated.
Q. Do you remember whalt 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 received none of the dividends, but just sold the stock carrying the dividends with it.
Q. Do you remember wha t price you sold it for?-A. No;  I do not
remember. I authorized a gentleman to sell the stock, and it was afterward accounted for to me in a sta-tei1ent of accounts between us, the
other matters of the account having nothing to do with the Credit 31Aobilier or the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Q. Have you any memory in regard to it? —A. lMy 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 purchase, except as I have already stated.
Q. So that what you got out of it you got by thie 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 i-A. NTo, 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 origincally in the New York papers.
There is one thing I want to say here, and I do not know that I shall
have a better opportunity. I have been Government director of the
Union Pacific Railroad for three years, and I[ wish to put in now my protest against the impression which seems to be getting over the country,
that the investment the Government has rmade in this road is a loss
On that question I have given my views and the views of the other Government directors in the report filed in the Interior Department. In
that report we make some recommendations as to some change in the
mainagement of the affairs of the company, and I believe that with those
changes made that road has sufficient  capacity to pay back to the Government every dollar the Government has invested. This report is in
my own handwriting, signed by myself anLcid my co-directors, and I protest against the impression being made in the minds of the people of the,country that the Government is'o lose all the money it has put into
that roa d, leaving out, of the question the benefit it has already derived
and is to derive in the future fiom the reduction of the cost of transportation.
Q. You had a certificate of ten shares? A. No, sir. When I settled
witlih Mir. 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 wwhich I gave my opinion, as
above stated, and I said to Mr. Ames, I" 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
imade out in my name, it never came to me.
Q. You never transferred it to anybody?,-A. NT, sir.
Q. You suppose that if it- had been transfered to you it would  have




218                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
been necessary for you to re-transfer it?-A. Of course it would hlave
been necessary.
Q. And if it had been so transferred your name would appear onl 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 General G. M. Dodge. General Dodge was the chief engineer of the company. He was going to
New York in the winter of 1869. I authorized him to sell rly 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 mnade the transir? —A. I suppose so. I requested to have the
certificate of stock made out and sent to me, but it was never doneneglected, 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?.-A. I knew nothing beyond this; when Mr. Ames came back from Neew York, as I have
said, he told me he had arranged for these ten shares of stock, and I requested 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. II did not have any idea in the whole transaction
that Mr. Ames, Mlr. M3eComb, 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
vwould do over again everything I (lid in connection with it.
Q. When did you become a Government director f-A. Some time in
1869, I think in the fall of 1869.
Q. Your sale of stock was not umade with a view to that appointment?-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 3lr. AICcCnArY:
Q. Do you remember what tinme it wa's that Congress adjoutrneDd in
the summer of 1868? -A. ALy recollection is that it was some time in
July; I do not remember the exact date.
Q. Your conversation with Mr. IMcComb was then a month or more
before the adjournment?-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 Mobilier 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 Washington, when they were organizing the movement made for the Mlarch
meeting of 1869, when they changed the directors of the company. The
whole thing was a mere matter of legal opinion. Some of the stockholders were restless under that proxy, and they -wanted to know what
power 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 them Union Pacific Railroaid Csompnany, and claimed the




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    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?-A. No,
I have not. It was in the winter of 1868-'69.
Q. Do I understand you to say that you considered yourself as obtaining these ten shares of stock from Mir. McComb?-A. Yes, sir; that
was the purpose for which I went into the negotiation. I was negotiating the stock for Mr. McComb, and I suppose this is the first intimation Mr. Ames has had of that fact.
Q. What was the reason Mr. M3cComb did not take it?-A. He said
to me, II 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 everything."  Anud this the ten shares did not do, as I understood.
Q. And you made your profit on it? —A. Yes, sir; much to my gratification. 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. McUomb at all,
and I was not going to play the part of the amateur sportsman, who, on
being tauinted with shooting at a calf and missing it, replied that he
was not certain whether it was a calf or a deer, and that he shot to hit
if it was a deer, and to miss if it was a calf.
Q. Then you said nothing to Mr. Ames that you were getting it for
Mr. McComb. —A. No, sir; that would have closed the whole transaction, 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 entered his mind to bribe a person who, from the start, was as true a
friend to the Pacific Railroad legislation as a person could be.
Q. There was no legislation in Congress concerning the Pacific Railroad while you held that stock — A. None that I recall.
By Mr. McCo2In:
Q. I want to ask the witness whethether 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-foor, 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?-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. 3IcCRA Y:
Q. I understand you that Mr. MeComb  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?-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 arrangement with Mr. Ames, resulting in the ten shares-that you understood
that you were getting them for Mr. McComb? —A. Undoubtedly I understood that.




220                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
By M1r. AMES:
Q. And you understood that you were getting air the dividends you
would be entitled to have on the ten shares of stock?-A. As I stated
to yotU when you came back from New York and said you had arranged
for ten shares at par, with the stock-dividends, and when I reported
that to Mr. McComb, 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. -JcCrA~Y:
Q.'You 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 yott know anything about the original subscription made by
Senator Grimes to the Credit Mobilier stock?-A. Yes, 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. ir. 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 leat least 10 per cent. interest if you will divide
with mue the profit there is over 10 per cent. TMr. 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 3Mr. Grimes took the stock.
Q. Do you know whether Senator Grimes declined to'vote upon questions touching the Pacific Railroad?-A. No; I have no knowledge on
that subject at all.
Mr. S-MITHEIRS stated that during tlhe absence of Judge Black, and
of any one representing Mr. 3IcComb, M3. 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. 3IcComb, having no
proper connection with the matters before the committee for investigation. The committee had very properly declined to permit Mr. Brooks
to place before them the matters to which he alluded in the War Department, 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 3Mr. Alley and erasing from it matters
purely personal to Mr. MIcComb, and which are unjust to him.
The C0HAIrMAN stated that the committee -would take the matter
under consideration.
WASHTINGTON, D. C., Jnta'y 1r, 1   873,
GEORG0E ~W. KENNEDY sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. State your residence and occupation. —Answer. I reside at
Baston, Massachusetts, and I am boo-k-keeper for Oliver Ames & Sons.




CREDIT MIOBILIEI.                    221
Q. For how many 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
AIobilier?-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 f-A. No, sir.
Q. Not from,Mr. Ames?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did Jl[r. Ames never inform you at any time that there was a quantity of stock standing in your name? —A. No, sir.
Q. You have never received the dividends from any such stock?-A.
No, sir; I think I should have remembered that.
Q. You were aware that both Oakes Ames and Oliver Amies were
stockholders in that company?-A. Yes, sir; Ii believe so.
Q. Do you know anything in relation to sales of stock or disposition
of stockl by them?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever near Oakes Ames say anything upon that subject
as to whom he sold stock I —A. Not that I know of.
Q. By the books of the company that have been produced here it seems
that thirty shares of the stock of that company stand in your name. You
have never known that fact? —A. No, sir.
Q. Mlr. Aimes 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 knowledge now that any -was transferred to you?-A. _No.
By Mr. EnnRICi ~:
Q. Have you any knowledge at all of transactions of Mir. Ames in his
dealings with the Credit Mobilier stock?-A. INo, sir; I do not know
that I have any positive knowledge.
Q. You seem to discriminate as to positive knowledge a 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 knowledgge?-A. I do not know that I
have any knowledge.
Q. Are you certain about that f?-A. I do not iknow whether I am certain or not.
Q. Can you call to your mnind anything in relation to transactions of
Mr. Ames in connection with the Credit Mobilier stock?f-A, No, sir; I
do no-t know that I can in any special case.
Q. Do you know of any general case e-A. No, sir; I do not know of
any.
Q. 2Oothing either general or special? —A. No sir.
Mr. ArIES. 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 RMobilier with other persons, or any contracts or engagements with M3r. 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 stockthe 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 nothing 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. NTo, 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 positive memory;' nothing that I could swear to, at all.
Q. State the best of your impressions of his dealings in Credit Mobilier stock, and transactions with other persons. —A. I think I saw,
on his books, two or three entries made, of parties I supposed to be
members of Congress - I am not sure of it.
Q. State to the committee what you can recollect about your impressions 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 now stated that you had some recollection in connection 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. Y6u cannot separate your business transactions 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 writing for him: I kept his note-book.
Q. Do I understand that to be your answer, that there is nothing you
can swear to?-A. Nothing that I can swear to positively.
Q. Have you any impression whatever, and if so, what is that impression, 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 entries 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 0?-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
the only one I seem to remember distinctly, and I do not remember certainly about him, was Mr. Patterson.
Q. Do you recollect seeing Mr. Garfield's name? —A. Not that I
know of.
Q. Have you any impression at all in reference to Mr. Garfield?-A.
No, I do not think I have.
Q. Have you any impression or recollection in reference to the name
of Mr. Colfax — A. I think I saw something I supposed was intended
to 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 Massachusetts?-A. N o, sir; I think not. I am not sure of it.
Q. Did you see anything in reference to Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts 2-A. I think I did.
Q. What did you see there?-A. I do not remember. I only recollected generally that I saw some of those names.
Q. In what sort of books were these entries that you saw 2 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 tMr. Ames carried, that he took memoranda of,notes from.
Q. What sort of a book? -A. I think it was a little memorandumbook 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 gentlemen 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 something of that sort. My business does not make any calls npon my memory; I put down whatever I have in black and white.
Q. You say that your memory is so defective that you cannot distinguish between knowledge you had some years ago, derived immediately from your connection with Mr. Ames, and that received from the
papers you have read — A. No, sir.
Q. You 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
youn 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 0. 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 sublject?-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 presence anything touching
contracts of members of Congress, or others, in regard to the Credit
Mobilier or Union Pacific Railroad?-A. No, sir.
Q. Then I understand you to say, lunder the obligation you have taken
to tell the truth and the whole truth touching this entire matter, that
you have no knowledge, direct or indirect, in regard to Mr. Ames's deals
ings with members of Congress, or other persons involved in the Credit
Mobilier, besides what you have told? —A. 1 do not remember anything
more than I have stated.
By Mr. 8MITIUERS:
Q. You spoke of a book in which these entries were nmade. 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 kr1. Ames carried in his pocket' —A. I should
think he could.
Q. Was it a pocket me-moran dum, conteaininig the unatters of which
you have spoken? —A, My impression is that it was something of thatkind.
- Q. It was such a book, then, as Mlr. 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 entries in relation to members of Congress you have spoken of were
made f?-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 Railroad stock
standing in your name f-A. Yes, sir; there were some.
Q. By whom were they transferred to you?-A. By Mr. Ames, I think.
Q. Were they your own-or what was the character of the transfer?
Did you pay any consideration for it?-A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Do you remember how many shares of Union Pacific Railroad stock
stood in your name?-A. I tlink 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 afnd 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. Anmes'?-A. I did.
Q. You say that thlis large number of shares were transferred by Mr.
Ames to you, without consideration, in one transfer or block o-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 uinderstood?-A. No, sir.
Q. While they stood in your name it was really the stock of Mr.Ames?-A. So I understood it.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       225
Q. And subject directly to his order. You acted under his direction ~?A. Yes, sir.
Q. WThen you transferred it to him was it in one lot or in smaller parcels?-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 retransferred 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 retransferred, but what the object was
a(dl for w.hat purpose it was done you do not know?-A. I do not
know.
WASHINGTON,  D. C., Januar~'y 18, 1873.
C. I. GARRISON sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. You live in New York?-Answver. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you ever any connection with this company called the Credit
1iMobilier of America? —A. Not to the anmount of 81, directly or indirectly.
Q. Or with the Union Pacific Railroad Company? —A. Not to the
amnaunt of $1, directly or indirectly, in stock or otherwise.
Q. The subject this committee are investigating is in reference to dealings with members of Congress in stock of the Credit Mobilier, by Mr.
Ames or anybody else. Do you know of any members of Congress being 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 ignorant, 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?-A. 1 know nothing of my own knowledge in.
regard to any member of Congress or any Senator or any Government
officer in this conneceion.
Q. Had you ever any conversation with Mr. Brooks, or did you hear!Mr. Brooks say anything in reference to shares in that company?-A. Mr.
Brooks brought Mr. Durant to me and introlduced him to me. Mr. Darant desired me to take an interest inl the Unionl Pacific Railroad, in its
stock, or in this company. I had also been approached befbre that by
another party-no one connected with the Government. After considering the matter I declined to go into it.  I understood thlen that Mr.
Durant wished to dispose of a certain interest to New Yorkers, and
visited me for that purpose.
Q. Can you state about the time when this interview occurred? —A.
I cannot.  It was about the tiume the Credit Mobilier was created, as I
understand it. I may be mistaken, but that is as I understand it.
Q. Was there ever any aplplication tmande to you by Dr. Diarant to take
stock in this Credit Mobilier? —A. I believe not, to the best of my recollection.
Q. Did Mr. Brooks make app:,lication to you to take stoek in it?-A.
No; he simply introduced Mr. Darant to le.
Q. Did you ever hear him sayial an.yi thing in reference to his having
15 X




226                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
stock himself, or his son-in-law having stock?-A. No; the only inforination I have on that subject is the publications purporting to come
from this investigation.
Q. With M1r. Brooks you never had any conversation, and never heard
him say anything on that subject — A. Mr. Brooks may have said some
time subsequently that he thought I made a mistake in not going in
and taklinig that interest I was solicited to take.
Q. Did he tell you why?-A. No; he took it for granted, I suppose,
that I kniew 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 — A. NTo; the first information
I had 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 investigation in the public journals.
Q. You are not aware that either he or his son-in-law held or contemplated holding any such interest — A. No; I had no such knowledge frorm M2ir. Brooks or anybody else.
Q. You had no knowledge in relation to any menber of Congress having that stock f?-A. No; the only information I have is from the newspapers since this investigation. I made upmy mindc not to go into the
investmen.t for reasons satisfactory to me.
By Mr. MERRUICK:
Q. You have been familiar with MIr. 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 fronr this introduction of Durant? —A.
I think not. I had been approached during the presidency of General
Dix, originally, to go into the Pacific Railroad, 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 oo into the Credit 3Mobilier. My reasons were simply
that I supposed if there was any money made in it, the chances were
that it would be taken away fi-om 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 manner they went into it made anything, they would be liable to suits and
annoyances, and perhaps nmight become personally responsible.
Q. Suits from whom f-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 imaking a little
gain.
Q. Had you any information of any probable suits — A. No, sir; nothing more than a mere suspicion on my part.
Q. Why should there be any suits in this more than any other corporation?-A. I thought that the parties going into the Credit Mobilier
might be liable, in consequence of being the same parties connected with
the Union Pacific IRailroad Comlpany.
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. didh
not know that that would be the case, but at my time of life I thought
I could not afford to take the chances.
Q.!. understand you to statte very distinctly that you. have no infor



CREDIT MOBILIER.                      227
mlation, direct or otherwise, by conversation with Mldr. Brooks, or otherwise, touching his connection with the Credit Mobilier, or Union Pacific
Railroad Comupany?-A. Nothing further than I have said. The showing I had was very good, but I thought I could not afford to take the risk.
WASHINGTO, D. C., JTantary 20, 1873.
SIDNEY DILLON sworn and examined.
By the CHIAIRMAN:
Question. You reside in New York?-Ainswer. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been connected with the Union /Pacific Railroad Company as a stockholder or as an officer — A. Yes, sir; I have been a
director of the Union Pacific Riailroad, and I was on the executive committee.
Q. Are you still a director?-A. I: am.
Q. Have you been connected also with the Credit AIMobilier as a stockholder? —A. I have.
Q. And as an officer?-A. As president.
Q. Are you now president of the companXly?-A. I an.
Q. And a director?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been connected with the company since it had any connection with the Union Pacific Railroad Company?-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?-A. No, sir.
Q. How early had you any connection With the Credit Mobilier 6?-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.0? -A. I was.
Q. And you owned some of the original stock? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. To how large an amount.-A. Not very large. I am sorry to say
t,hat this morning I cannot give you the exact amount. I was not one
of the large stockholders.
Q. Do you know anything in relation to the transactioll by which a
considerable number of shares were put into the hands of IMr. 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. Were you one of the signers of that paper? A. I think I was.
Q. Do you remember what wa~s said on that occasion by Mr.; Ames
and others, in reference to who the persons were that he was under obligations to, or that he desired stock to fulfill his obligations with — A.
d 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 thllt Tvfr. 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
beimng members of Congress witch whom he had.  any negotiations for
stock? —A. I t!ink he saitl there were some memibers of Congress. I
atm inot certain; it w<as a thing tihat I did not attat:lch any cosil:derationn




228                     CREDIT M1OBILIER.
to at the time, except that there was that amount of stock that he
called for to fulfill 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 MVlr. Garfield were mentioned? —A. I 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 MlIr.
Durant, or to whom he was under obligation, that he wanted the stock
to eriable him to fulfill? —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 Imind that
he did.
Q. is it your impression that Mfr. 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 know anything in relation to the negotiations between
him and Mr. Brooks at that timle?-A. No; sir.
Q. Had you known that iMr. Brooks had any connection with tle enterprise, or'of his nmakling efflrts to get people to take stoclk in the company?-A. I had not.
Q. You had knownl nothing in rela,tion to IMXr. Brooks's efforts in connection with the company? —A. I always knew that Mr. Brooks was a
firm friend. He would come into the office occasionally, back uand forth.
That is all I know about it.
Q. What you knew was that hle was a supporter and advocate of the
Pacific Railroad? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. HIIad you.any knowledge in reference to the transfer of these 100
slhares to Mr. Durant?,-A. I have no knowledge.
Q. It seems that 100 shares were transferred to Mir. 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 implressiion.
Q. HILad yon any knowledge in relation to the subsequent transaction
by which 50 shares were transferred or issued directly by the company
to M3r. Neilson ll —A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what you know in reference to that transactiol?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-l)resident of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. After his leaving for Europe, Mr. Brooks came in one day and said to me, J' Mr. Neilson
has received of Dutrant a certain amlount of stsck." I think he named 100
shares, and there was an increase on the Credit Mobilier stock at a certain 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 enlitled to 50
shares more. Mr. Brooks said to me that he considered him entitled
to those 50 shiares. After talking some little time with hinm;  said to himu
I would consult a majority of tile stockholders of the Credit Mobilier,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       229
and, if they thought well of it, I would recommlend, according to his
statement, that he should get it. I did consult with quite a number of;the stockholders, and I not only consul-ted, but I took the precaution to
get up a paper whereby quite a number of the stockholders of the Credit
3Mobilier sanctioned the proposition to issue the 50) shares more. I
Inade that fact known to Mr. Brooks, wheun lhe said to mne — cannot
Oword the exact phrase lie used —the substance of it was that he would:t:ransfer any interest he had to Mr. Neilson. 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,about it. But, upon due reflection, it seehms to me that whlen Mr. iNeilson
camne for the stock he borrowed somne money of me, 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 ifn 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. I leave it for them to take
care of the details.
Q. Now, to go back a little; 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
lwhicll was, in point of fact, transferred to Neilson, was first transferred:to AMr. 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? —A. I did understand it so, and I understand it so now, that
Ihe 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 cerit.?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
some little talk between him and Durant, he asking Dur'ant for it, or
something of that sort,; that there was some misunderstanding. I had
mzade 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 I 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 necessity of getting up a paper, and getting the authority of the principal
shareholders?-A. The necessity was that, while Mr. Brooks saidl, (and
I1 took his statement,) that Mr. Neilson was entitled to this, I felt that
ifI 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 stockholdersf —A. If the one hundred shares had been bought
from the Credit Mobilier, and held as stock belonging to him, I would
not have been'obliged to have gone to the stockholders to get their,consent. But, as it came from prior stock, which, as I understood,
Mar. 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 hadc supposed it to be clear that he was entitled




230                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
to fifty shares, you would have issued themn 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 they
paper? —A. I do not know where it is. I say again, although I am
president of the Credit Mobilier at the present time-that noble Credit
Mobilier-yet I have not a paper belonging to it. I have trusted themn
entirely to our secretary to get whatever there was; there were not a
great mlany 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 mypossession 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 Boston'
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 secretary.
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 summons to this place, but I find I have no papers of theCredit 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 itwas a paper by which they conceded or agreed that Mr. Brooks was entitled 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 impression 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 which had accrued upon it.
Q. Do you remember the time when the certificate of stock was issued
to Neilsoun?-A. I cannot tell from memory; I have nothing to refresh
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 declarel 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, oronly the dividends declared after it was issued? —A. I cannot tell you
now.
Q. Do you know wbhat was the value of this Credit Mobilier stock —'what it sold for in the market, or what any had been sold for prior to



CREDIT MOBILIER.                    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
1has been sold for 140, antd I think some has been sold as high as 200.
Q. Do you think that was as early as the winter of 1867-'68?-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?-A. Yes, sir; and Mr. Neilson.
Q. Did you have any negotiation at all with lNeilson or on that subject 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 interests 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; I supposed he was telling
mne what was true at the time.
Q. At the time this paper was signed do you know whether Mr. Brooks's
name or Mr. Neilson's name was used in the paper e-A. I do not.
Q. Did you write the paper yourself? —A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Do you know who did l-A. I should think it was writtenby the
secretary, Mr. Ham; still, it may have been written by our attorney,
Judge Emmett, or by Mr. Hammond, or Mr. Pomeroy. I would sometimes-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 do 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 positively.  I thilnk 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
cann9t recall their names. If I could see a list of the Boston stockholders 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 lian him some money.
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 the money i-A. I hardly
know what he did give me at the present time. He gave me something




232                     C3EEDIT MOBILIER.
which was satisfactory to me; I cannot now say what. Almost all these
transactions I make in loaning money or borrowing money are done
directly tihrough my secretary. If I say I want to borrow $5,000( or
$50,000,, if I can get it, I place the securities in his hands, and he goes
and gets it. And if 1 loan $5,000 or 50,000, I say to him, get such ai nd
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 Neilson in
reference to security to you for the money?-A. I think this, that I
ordered my secretary to let him have $5,000, or about that amount, and
that he offeredi to give ime-it is just in my mind at this timte-some
Union Pacific Railroad securities, or Credit lMobilier securities, or
something like that; I cannot tell just what the security was.
Q. Has that money been repaid to you?-A. I cannot say. I think
it hls. I could tell by an examination of my accounts. I cannot tell
Q. Did you look. at your books or accounts before you came here to
see if that loan was still outstandingi- 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?A. That would not come to my knowledge unless I made special inquiry. It would come to my office 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 try; 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 forgetful about dates and such things, and you must pardon me for it.
By Mr. NIBLACIK:
Q. Is there not somebody in your office who could tell?-A. I think I
can find 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 witnesses that when the increase was made, every stockholder who subscribed to the increase was entitled to the same amount in Pacific Railroad 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 relation 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 fiftvy shares increase, he would also be entitled to the same
amount of Union Pacific Railroad 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. EHe would be entitled to the
increase of stock and to the bonds; I say, 1" if" —I do not know, and
do not say, whether he was or not.
Q. Do you know whether in the talk or negotiation that occurred
when youl got up this paper for the signatures of the stockholders that
point came up? Whether it was talked of that Irk. Brooks and Mr.
Neilson were or were not entitled to the additional fifty shares, and




CREDIT 1MO0iLlER.                    233
whether they were also entitled to the $5,000 of railroad bonds - A. I
do not think it was discussed. I do not remlember that it was talked
of at the time.
Q. But you say if he was entitled to have the stock by virtue of his
being the owner of the one hundred shares when the stock was increased, 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. Neilson prior to the time of the
increase, hei would have been entitled to take that increase and to have
the bonds; but if it was in the name of iDurant at that time, and Durant
had corne 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 have
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. Hlave 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 theml?-A.
qNo, sir.
Q. You have no knowledge from him on that subjectf-A. No, sir.
Q. I understand that in the negotiation you had with MIr. Brooks
in regard to the proposedl increase of stock which he claimed that
he was entitledcl to, you do not remember whether Brooks, Neilson,
or anybody else7s name was mentioned'The question in negotiation
was whether they should have the stockl?-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 marjority of the stockholders
of the Credit 3lobilier, he then said directly in substance that it was to
go to his son-in-law, a.nd 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 clainm was decided by yot
as president, or by a majority of the board of directors f-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 sunlmitted 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. Although the executive committee have the power of the board of directors, 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 therefore took this precaution to get a large number of the stockholders to sign
this paper, so that in' case it should be pot 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 in session when the claim
was made you would haye submitted the matter directly to them — A.
I do not know. I might have got a paper signed whether there was a
meeting of the board of directors or, not. That was my general way of
doing things.




234                    CREDIT MOBILIER
By Mr. McCRRY:
Q. You were president of the board of directors at the time the stock
was called for by Mr. Brooks? —A. I think so.
Q. Did he or you suggest getting up the paper?-A. I cannot tell;
I think Mir. Brooks had not anything to do with it. I do not know that
lhe did. I don't recollect that there was any conversation between him
and me in regard to the matter at all.
Q. IHe 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. Yes, 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 cannot 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 stockholders, urging them to sign? —A. I do not. I do not know that he
knew what I was trying to do. I 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 to Neilson? — 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? —A. No; I do not think there was.
Q. Did not stockholders object to it and refutse to sign the paper?A. I do not think any one refused that I talked with about it.
Q. Did you know of any one 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?-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 MIOBILIER.                    235
the statement he had made was true, but I went about getting it fixed
up.
Q. And that stat statement was, that by virtue of his holding one hunAdred 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. I never looked at the books. Whatever I took, I took fromn 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 0?-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 Neilson
before I should have done anything.
Q. You do not know whether that stock stood in Mr. Brooks's name
on the book, and' whether it has since been changed? —A. No, sir; I
don't.
Q. If the books should show that some name had been erased where
the name of Neilson appears, the Neilson substituted, would you say
that it had prlobably 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. 5Would 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. You remember the ground on which he was entitled to it was because 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 suppose 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. No; I do,
not presume that. If I knew I would tell you.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. Do you recollect whether the paper which was drawn up in reference to the fifty shares, which you have just spoken of, included the.




236                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
transactions of any other parties than this specific one of Neilson?-A.
I do not think it did.
Q. It applied explicitly to this transaction in reference to these fifty
shares, and embraced no other? —A. I thinlk that is the fact; I am not
certain.
By the CHAIR3IAN:
Q. Did you have more than one interview with IMr. Brooks on the
subject of these fifty shares? —. I might have hatd; I almost think I
had two; I aim not certain.
Q. Where were these interviews'l-A. I think the first interview was
in the Union Pacifice Railroad office.
Q. WVas that and the Credit 5Mobilier offi3e kept'togetherl -A. They
were in the same building, in adjoining rooms.
Q. Have yenou 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. That is to say, that he was
not there that I recollect. 1 do not recollect seeing hint there, and I do
not think he was there.
Q. Do you recollect whether Mr. IfeComb 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 sav
anything in relation to what he could or would do provided he had
these fifty shares? Did he say anything about his connection witht
Congress, or about his being a Government director o. Did he hold out
any inducement to you to let hiin have the stock as to any supposed influence he could exert — A. No, sir; there was no talk of that kind
at all at the time. He got it wholly upon the groulnd 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 Mir. BROOis:
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 Neilson, thie fifty shares would have
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 putit on 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 one hundred shares carried
with it the right to fifty shares.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       237
By the CI-IAIRMALN:
Q. You stated that M3r. Brooks assigned these shares to Neilson.
7Were these shares in the possession of iMr. Brooks?-A. I did not mean
that. I meant to be understood that the rights were assigned or transferred 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 fifty shares had
been inl some way transferred to Neilson.
By Mr. Buools:
Q. Did you ever know of Mr. Brooks receiving any dividends fron
any of the shares enteied upon the books of the company — A. No, sir.
By Mlr. SMITIERI S:
Q. 5What is the name of the secretary who you say is familiar witl
the monetary part of this transaction? —A. B. F. Ham.
Q. Was Mr. Hanm your private secretary and the secretary of the
Credit Mobilier? —A. For this specific purpose, he was.
Q. Then, the iacts of which you speak and of which you are ignorant,
you suppose to be in the possession of Mr. Ham n? —A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. Do you mean us to understand that Mr. ]Hlam attends to your private 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 iil my own office; my office being in another street and in another place. I now believe and understand that the transaction of that
business was done by M3r. Hlam, by  y order, foir me.
By the CHAIPRMrAN:
Q. You stated, when I inquired what securities you got for the money
you loaned Air. Neilson, or whether you had any, that your secretary
would know; did you mean Mir. Ham?-A. He is now my Secretary in
the office I'occupy at No. 50 Wall street; that is, he is one of my seeretaries; 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 transaction in the city, I have another man who attends to that expressly, and
tlhey have quite enough to do. M3r. Ham  has to attend to that branch of
my business.
By Mr. S MITHERS:
Q. The object of my question was to specify in relation to this information as to the persons who could give it.-A. I think B. F. Haml 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. SXIT1EiES:
Q. Your impression is, if I understand you, that if tlhis money was
repaid, which you loaned, Mr. Hamn  would be the prop)er person to gi7ve
the informati en in answer to that question?-A. That is my imIpression',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. ~Neilson?-A. I
do not.
Q. Do you remember whether, in fact. he pledged Union Pacific bonds




238                    CREDI'rT  OBILIER
iin security for the loan? —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 seeretary?-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 matter stan(ls, any further now on that point.
Q. Do 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 recollect the transaction; I cannot recollect it.
By Mr. McCrAIrY:
Q. You do not know what has become of the Credit Mobilier?,-A. I
do not know, except that they are in the offiee 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. You do not lknow 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 Saturday to know if he could come on with me here. 1 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 fainily had not been sick, and another reason was that I wanted him here
with mle.
Q. What was your business originally. 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 railroands.
Q. Mention some of the largest of themtl.-A. I was on the Western
Railroad, from Boston to Albany. I had some large contracts on that
road, which I finished up in 1846. I was on the Rutland and Burlington Rtailroad, the Vermont and Massachusetts Railroad, the Connecticut
River Railroad, the Philadelphia and Erie, the Hartford and Springfield
Railroad, and several large railroads in that section. I am now interested strongly in a road called the Canada Southern, running from Buffalo 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. 1 was also a contractor on the Northern
Central Road.
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 it, 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 fifteen 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 — A. Yes, sir.
By iMr. ALLEY:
Q. Had I anything to do with that transaction witeh Mr. JBrooks in
any shape or manner? lDid I ever give him alny information or have:,.any conversation with him in referenceY to it to your knowledge?-A. I




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     239
don't know what conversations you may have had with himin; you did
not in my hearing.
Q. Were you ever spoken to upon the subject by me? —-A. I do not
think 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 mny name is not on that paper I?-A. I cannot say certainly; I do not think it is.
Q. It has been stated here that I had a great deal to do in the Credit
Mobilier —more than anybody else; in fact, that I was captain, mate,
and all hands. Was I as frequently present at the office in 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 il New York oftener than you, I met him oftener than you, or than
with both of you together.
Q. Was he not iu New York much more frequently; in fact, three
times oftener than I was — A. I do not know; I think he was there
oftener at that time.
Q. So that you think 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; whept any two, yourself or either of us,
met,'we constituted a majority to do any basiness.
Q. It was a committee of three? -A. Yes.
Q. Had the executive committee anything to do at all with this matter 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 canl 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.
T'IOMAS C. DURANT recalled and examined.
By the CHA IRMlAN:
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. save you a copy 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 think I settled that one claim.
Q. Do you remember these transfers appeared upon this copy of the
book you have t-A. All the transfers I made appear upon that book.
Q.'The book you have will show all the translers that were mlade by
-you, —A. Yes. sir.




240                     CREDIT MOB1LIER.
Q. Do you know 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 cases 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 you remember the time this stock was assigned to you? -A. I
do not; I 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 engagements were to the extent of some seventy or eighty
thousand dollars. I transferred much of it from my own stock atnd
when they gave me this, it was some of it used to replace the stock I
hacd transferred.
Q. Wasthe portion you received fiom 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. I think these transfers
were made in the month of December, 1867.
Q. Then all the transfers you made of that stock to fulfill your engagenments would be subsequent to that date?-A. Not necessarily, because 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 York, among broklers, 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, un11.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 discussing the matter of declaring the first dividend, Mr. Ames was very
anxious the dividend should be made, but AIr. 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. Whenr
the trustees met again, Mr. Alley voted for the dividend.
Q. Was that intended to be a real sale? —A. 0, yes. He called for
the stock, and it was transferred to him the 20th December.
Q. It was, then, a real sale f —A. It was a real sale, under the circumstances that I have mentioned.
qa. -. 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. IH.
STeilson, one hundred shares. We also have an account of that. The
next, is, December 27, HI. C. Crane. That also you have testified to.A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that a sale of the nmnber of shares given from you to Mr;




CRE])IT MOBILIER.                       241
Crane — A. Nly impression is now that I had it transferred to him for
the purpose of enabling me to transfer it to m eetu some of these obligations ] had incurred. I had transferred them all out of nly owni stock,
an(l he held this stock for me.
Q. Is it still standing in his name?-A. I thlink it has been transferred to me.
Q. This was not a sale, then? —A. [No.
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. Bard well, 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 MIr. Bardwell did not make
the purchase for himself on his own account? -A.. I am not positive,
but he told me Mr. McConmb had an interest in it.
Q. 1Had any member of Congress any interest in it'?-A. 0, 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 26, J. iEedden, one hundred
shares.-A. He is a broker in Wa11 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 dividends. He has been unfortunate in 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. Th at is now yoaur stock —A. That is my stock; yes, sir.
Q. January 9, Henry Blood, seven shares.-A. That was an interest
Mir. Blood ha,-d with I don't know whom. HEe was one of the original
subscribers, and some of his stock stood in my name. He is a WVallstreet man.
Q. This list covers all that appears on tis copy of your t;ransferbook — A. I think so. I had it made from the original book.
Q. You. believe this covers all the transfers you h1 ave m~ade to anybody; and you' believe you. have mlade no trainsfers since then.-A.
xNo, 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 priv ate stockholders"11.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
MIay, 18677 after I put the injunction on the Union Pacific Railroad
against contracting with the Credit Mlobilier, by direction of the Credit
/Iobilier, was changed, to carry out the obligations I ha, d made. They
had credited me for the mnoney paid for the stock, ald 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
(ertificates to meet these obligations.  After the administration was
changed, it was surrendered to the company, anad notice given in writing
143 xs




2 42                   CREDIT MIOBILIER.
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 eitherlate in 1866 or early in 1867. The first payment was payable in February, 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, except 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 amount within, perhaps, one hundred and fifty shares.
Of that I think one hundred shares was assigned to General Dodge, and
I do not know but Neilson had the other fifty. I alm 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 additional? —A. At the time I commenced talkillng with _M'fr. 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 Mir. 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?-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 supposed he wais satisfied at the time with what was done.       a
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.
He 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. lccOCa~ Y:
Q. Was General Dodge chief engineer of the Union Pacific Railroad? —A. IHe was chief engineer; yes, sir.
Q. And had been for how long?-A. I do not recollect. I think since
1865. I can tell you 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 Congress?-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 MIr. Boyer and
Mr. Alley 0?-A. Yes, sir.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      243
Q. Wfhen did you make your original 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. DI)o you remember whether he was a member of the Pacific Railroad committee?-A. I do not think he was.
WASHINGTON, January 21, 1873.
JAMES BROOIS, a member of tie House of Pepresentatives, 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 AMobilier stock to influence or bribe other members,
and that fifty shares had been thus given me without consideration, 1,
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 rest7 but for persistent efforts here to
impair the testimony of both.
The following letter fromn the Acting Secretary of the Interior shows
my first official relations with that board:
" WASHINGTON, January 20, 1873.
" SAi: BHon. James Brooks, of New York, was commissioned a Government director of the Union Pacific Railroad 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.. COWEN,
"'Acting Secretary.
"4 Hon. L. P. POLAND,
4 Chairman, &c., &e., House of Representatives."
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 mv 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 AMobilier, though another corporation, in another State, I subjected myself to misconstruction. 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. 1 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 C. H. Neilson, my son-in-law, to whom,




244                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
as a stock operator, the right would be valuable.  iMr. Durant made no
objection, save as to the number of shares to be transferred, and has
stated that he compromised on that by selling to lMr. Neilson one
hundred shares, with five Union Pacific bonds in addition, and a certain number of shares of Union Pacific stock, which were itnluediately
entered upon the books, as seen by the record, in Mr. Neilson's own
name. I did not then receive, and have never since received, one cent
of pronft from thei transaction, in my own or in another name. I have
never receipted for, or had any dividend, or allotment, in. any form,
fromn any shares entered on the book in Mr. Neilson's name, either directly or indirectly. I did not give Mr. lNeilson 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 als soon as
he could.  Hence, probably, as Mr. Crane testifies, although I have
entirely forgotten the transaction, I acted for Mr. Neilson in paying
Jr. 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 " John Doe," or " Richard Roe," whose connection by marriage
could not be traced to me in all the books of a great national corporation.
The fifty additional shares purclased by lMr. Neilson himself, on or
about February 29, 1868, were necessarily sold to him by virtnue of my
agreement with  Mr. Durant, and upon a statement of the fact to the
company, it was concededed that the fifty shares belonged to him, upon
his paying for themn the par value, with interest from July 1, 1867. I
never spoke to MAIr. Alley, nor he with me, upon this subject, as sworn
by Mro MIcComb. 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 Congress. 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 was a member of Congress, for if I had never
been named a Government director, I should probably have been the
owne'r of a large amiount of that stock up to this day,: I have as muclh
riglt to own paper stocek as live stock —as sheep, or spindles, or lead,
or iron mines, or barley, or lumber, or steami-engines, or founderies, with
two or three thousand tari-fed articles, lhrgely 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 —agricuitur al, manuf'aeturin g, or commercial-whe en these interests
are to be legislated upon.
From April 6, 1866, to Miarlch 4, 1867, I was not in Congress, asnd during 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 Railroad, borrowing mnoney for it, and loaning it
money, cat great risls, too, which led then, when I was not a member of
Congress, as Mir. Durant shows, to his promising me the right to purchase some of his shares in the Credit MLobilier; 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 mnan. Now, I have only to add that




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     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 Pacific Railroad. Nor have I, as charged by Mr. McComb, asked democratic mlembers of Congress to vote for the road, and IL do not remember ever to have spoken to any democratic member upon any legislation.
relating to the road.
All I have clone was, when not a member of Congress, to accept an
offer Mr. Durant mnade, 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 CHAIRiAN:
Question. Were you a stockholder.in the Union Pacific Railroad?
The WITNESS. When?
The CIIAIRMAN. Ever.
Answer. I am now. I was obliged to be a stockholder when I becanme
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 Government 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 become a stockholder, as the laws of the company did not allow any one
to become a director unless he was 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 4 stockholder in the company?A. No, never; not a share.
Q. How early was the conversation between you and Mr. Duranut,
when you were promised two hundred shares of stock? -A. It was in
1866. My impession is, early in 186i6.
Q. You do not know when the connection of the Credit Mobilier and
the Pacific road comnmenced? -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. Durant 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 conversation with any one upon that subject other than Mr. Durant? —A.
I co-operated with Mr. Durant. I worked with him and others to induce capitalists to take stock in the Credit Mobilier.
Q. In regard to taking stock yourself in the Credit Mobilier, did you
have any conversation with anybody except Mr. Durant on that subject?-A. I do not remember anybody else. Mr. Durant was the principal 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 MIr. 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 f?-A. I might have
had any number of shares of Credit Mobilier stock prior to December,
1867.
Q. The great difficulty then was to get anybody to take it, was it




246                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
not?-A. I could not get anybody to take it. I 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 f —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, sonme of the tinme selling as low as
92, I did not want them, but when the stock went above par I (lid 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?-A. No; it was what is called in Wall
street on "' option."
Q. You understood that your agreement with him was such that you
had 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? —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 mle say here I never heard as munch
about the Oales es 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 settlement of one hundred shares, what was your idea in regard to the value
of the stock? —A. I think they were worth then about 130 or 140; that
was my impression at the time.
Q. Do you remember whether that question was discussed between
you and IMr. Durant l?-A. I do not remember; Mr. Durant is a man of
large business, and does not talk muach in mlaking 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. You learned from your conversation with him that the stock had
for some reason become suddenly valua,ble, alnd that people were more
anxious to take it than they had been — A. I did.
Q.' How early in that conversation with Mr. Durant did Mr. Neilson's
name come in — 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 misapprehension 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 ian
the Union Pacific Railroad, 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 MOBILIER.                      247
Q. You knew  the Credit Mlobilier had some connection with the
Union Pacific IRailroad?-A. Yes, sir, and that was the imotive that
made me refuse to hold the Credit Mobilier stock.
Q. And you think this was announced to Mr. Durant from the beginning of your negotiations with him, which resulted in this settlealent?A. It Imust have been. I see, by the entries thatt have been made, Mr.
Neilson's name is not only upon the Credit Mobiller books, but upon the
stock-books of the Union Pacific  IRailroad Comlpany; 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. Darant
was transferred to Mr. Neilson. What I desire to know is, when Mr.
Neilson's namen came into the negotiations you had vinth huim?-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 satisfactory 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 Railroad
securities? —A. Five thousand of boids, I think it is; he swears to it.
Q. And two hundred shares of Union Pacife iRailroad stock in addition to the five thousand bonds?-1A. Yes, the stock at a nominal value.
I do not remember what its value was, because it never camne into my
h ands' it passed immediately to AMr. Neilson.
Q.,  am not talking about the value of it. The question I a1sk is,
whether that was a pa.rt of the settlement between you and -Mr. Durant,
in connection with these one hundred shares~?-A. It was, I presume.
Q. Was th'e receiving of these bonds and shares of stock what induced you to forego any claim to thle additional one hundred shares?
-A. It was in the power of Mr. Durant to (lo what he thought was
right; I had only to accept what he thought was proper. I had no
written contract or obligation fromt him.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Neilson upon the subject
prior to this time?-A. ZYes, I had told him what I should do.
Q. Po you remenber how long prior -to this statement or agreement?
— A. I do not reamember; 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. Neilson 6?-A. Yes. I had not at the time any idea, of
its value; I hal no conception when they were being transferred to
him; I did not formn an idea of this prospective 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 3003, up and down in all directions.
Q. I)D you recall any conversation with any of these gentlemLen-with
Mr. Ames or Mr. Alley-in regard to the valueof the stockat that time?
— A. I never had any conversation with Mr. Ames or Mr. Alley about
it; they were not my ipolitical friends. I felt angry antd excited against




248                 CREDIT MOBILIER.
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. Durant, to TMr. 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 himl
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. —A. I do not think there was. He was a man of property; he is my son-in-law; I have loaned him $10,000 or more very frequently.
Q. Do you remember whether you took any obligation from him in
any way, showing that you advanced the moneyB?-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 youT 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 know is, whether you have the account charged
in any form. —A. I 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 remember that I 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. I 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', Miarch, or April, that a
large portion was repaid to me.
Q. Was it paid at one tinee? —A. No, not at one time.
Q. Do you remember how much was paid at one time-A.-    I do not..
Q. C(an 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 likept any account beyond a general record, from the,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    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 simply go into your general accounts? -A. I 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. I 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. Hle states that it was, and he is probably 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 Neilson, unless I was apprehensive that he was engaged in sonme 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
1Pacific Railroad bonds was together with the 20,000 Union Pacific Railroad stock, and whether either was ever in your hands f-A. I passed
everything over to M3r. N eilson. I never touched a cent of the proceeds
of the transaction.
Q. Do you remember whether these bonds were actually in your possession?-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 bondls could have been placed with you as
security for the payment of the anmount you advanced to Mr. Neilson —
A. MIy impression is that they were not. I never asked him for any
collateral.
Q. Do you believe you ever held them at all?-A. No; I believe I never
held theim at all.
Q. And that you never had a certificate for JUnion Pacific Railroad
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 Government director, and I would not touch a share of the stock of the railroad 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, without its being transferred
on the book?-A. I do not think I did. I am quite sure of that. I could
never have had any in my possession, because, when I made the transaction with Mr. Durant, nothing was given on the stock-book. M3r. Neilson lust have gone to the officer in charge anud got it. I am confident
it was never in my haand.
Q. Now, sir, as to the fifty shares of Credit Mobilier stock; at the time
of this negotiation and settlement. between you and Mar. Durant, was
there anything said between you and him in relation to your being entitled, or Neilson being entitled, to fifty shares additional stock?- A. I
knew verty little of what was doing in the interior of the Credit Mobilier.
When I arranged with Mr. Durant for these one hundred shares, I believed 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 fifty 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 the early shares, the
shares in the first issue of the Credit Mobilier stock, was entitled to onehalf in addition.
Q. Did you understand at the time you were ha,ving 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 not think, and there was no.conversation in regard to any additional stock'?-A. I do not think there was any conversation 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 n9t know what its interior operations were.
Q. Can you tell froml whom, and when, you (lid learn in reference to
these fifty shares additional? —A. I learned it fromn a conversation with
Mr. Dillon.
Q. Did you inform Mr. Dillon how Neilson caine to get tlle one hundred shares?-'A. I (lid.
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. IDo I understand that Mr. Dillon said that the mainner in which
you or Neilson camle by that stock carried with it the fifty additional
shares?-A. MIr. Dillon thought so, ancl his only hesitation was whether
they were to come from Mr. Durantis portion or fron the company. Mr.
Dillon never doubted the right; it was only as to what source it was to
come from.
Q. Did you ha,ve 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 (lid 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 getting a paper and getting
people to sign it? —A. Nothing to me. I never heard of there 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. iMr.
Dillon was a man of i-nmmense business, and spent very little time in
talking.
Q. Do you remember whether you had more than one interview on
the subject? —A. I (lo not remember more than one. There may have
been two. I would not swear positively as to the number of conversations.
Q. Where were they.-A. It may have been in the office of the
Union Pacific Railroad 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 MIr.
Alley, for reasons I have given before. I never had any conversations
with him on the subject, nor with VMr. Ames.
Q. Do you remember when you had this conversation, whether one or
more, with MLr. Dillon, in the office, as to who was present, or whether
anybody was present V-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. You knew McComb? —A. Yes.
Q. Had you known him for some time?-A. I have known him about
the Pacific Railroad.
Q. So that if MIr. 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 tlie only question between you and Mr. Dillon upon this
subject was as to where the additional stock should come friom?-A; He
did not dispute the right to it at all. lHe did not make any issue even
as to where it was to come froml. 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 frotm Mr. Dillon that those persons who were entitled 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 IRailroad 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
lea;rned it with you here for the first time.
Q. The only idea you had was that the stock was worth miore than
you paid for it? — A. That was the only idea I 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 MOBILIER.
general conversation about the office.  ily 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 an(d Mr. Dillon as to how
these shares were to be paid for?-A. I 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. Neilson he had that right in connection with his orioinal 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 in this respect before,
you had this conversation with Mr. Dillon? —A. That is my impression.
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 way. 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 Nobilier 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 remember what it was. He is a stock operator, and is constantly conversing upon the subject of stocks of almost every kind, so. that I 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 advanced the money
to pay for it?-A. Not until after this investigation commenced here.
Q. l)o 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 payment'?-A. I am sure I never dcid. I know I never did personally.
Q. Do you think if the payment had been imade out of your funds,
so that Neilson would have to account to you for it, it would have come
to your knowledge??-A. I think so. If that -were the case, I should
think he must have paid him out of that $9,000.
Q. I understood Teilson to say that. $9000 was p-aid to you.-A. He
says so. It is a question between him aind Mr. Dillon. I know nothing
about it.
Q. Do you think Neilson was mistaken in saying he paid that $9,000
to you? He could not have paid it to you and IMr. Dillon both.-A. I
cannot say. I have not my cash-book here. I expected to have received it by express this morning.
Q. You think some of your books may give you more definite information upon this subject than you n.ow have — A. My 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 lave 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 memory; we only want to know wbhat
the facts are from your memory.-A. Mr. Dillon has promised the comnmnittee that he will ascertain. It was entirely a transaction between
him and -Mr. SNeilson.
Q. I understood you to say you 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 thfat neither money, stock, nor bonds came to you as dividends? —A. Nor allotments, nor advances, nor anything whatever.
Q. If any bonds went with *the fifty shares accretions, they never
came to you?-A. They never camre to rue. I am so explicit upon that
point because, when I started out, or made up my mind to accept the
position. of Government director, I made up my mind to have nothing
to do with the stock or securities of the xfoad, or the Credit Viobilier, 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, mloney or in whatever form the dividends were
made, beyond the asmount 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 3Mr. Durant and
any member of Congress — 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.
Y. You have no knowledge in any form upon that subject except what
ha s been published in the newspapers? —A. None whatever.




254                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
By Mr. MERRICx:
Q. You spoke of the value of this stock as about 130; did you include
in that valuation or exclude fromn it the bonds and Union Pacific Rtailroad 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 included all dividends and allotments as I understood; and that I supposed 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 Pacific Railroad Company?-A. Yes; I had been tendered the appointment. I had not thein accepted it, as I stated.
Q. You say you did not take your oath of office as such until the
1March 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 AMobilier stock?-A. Yes, after I became a Government director, I say that
so far as these transactions through my son-in-law were concerned, certainly.
Q. Did you make up your mind both in regard to Union Pacific
Railroad 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 Railroad 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 Boston, and in Boston found Mr. Ames and Mr. Alley and some other gentlemen 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 fromthe contractors
which were only met with the utmost difficulty and at high rates of interest. The first-mortgage bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad 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 individuals for the drafts that might be made by contractors or speculators.
They must 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 desirous of seeing the road built, I cared not at what expense. TMy 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 gentlemen 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 ha,cd nothing to do




CREDIT MOBILER.                      255
with the prices. ily only care as a Government director wats to see that
the road was built, and that the money or lands received from the Government were properly and faithfully expended on the road.
Q. Did you, 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 responsible 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 contractors would get their pay, and they
charged high prices for everything, and had to pay high prices. Ten,
twenty., 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 uncertain 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 Central 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, and 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 expenditure, necessarily, in order to make the road. My associates in the
Government directorship were Mr. Williams, of Pittsburgh, George Ashmun, of AMassachusetts, 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, authorized 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 interests of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Rrailroad Company, and to
secure for them the cheapest possible construction of the road, consistent 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 River, and the iron by way of New
Orleans. Everything was done on the most extravagant scale of expenditure, 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 GovernmIent bonds and of their own first-mortgage bonds. With the Central Pacific Company the case was somewhat
different. The Central Pacific had double subsidies; they had subsi



256                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
dies from the Federal Government, and they had subsidies from the
State of California. But the Central Pacific was compelled to transport
its rails for building its road via the Panamau  tRailroad at an immense expense, or to send them  by way of Cape Horn. In their
struggle to build the ioad quick, both companies made the work
more than it otherwise would have cost, but the Government gained
by its rapid completion. The road wacs, in fact, completed seven
years before the time limited by Congress; and large amounts of
money were saved to the Government in consequence, in the transportation of troops, munitions of war, and supplies to feed the soldiers
in 1iontana, New fMexico, 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 additional amount paid for the construction of the road, under the circumstances I have stated, will have been saved to the Government in the
matter of its transportation. This was the reasoning of the Government 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 remember 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. McComb
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 promisedc if I remember right, to allude to the subject again hereafter. I consumned 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 explanation? — 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 therefoire confined myself to the fifty shares.
Q. -Was not that speech made to prodLuce 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 Pennsylvania suit and the records of the Union Pacific Railroand Company accessible to everybody, to have sought to do any such thing. In that
speech I say, " I might dwell upon this, as I shall perha.ps, 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 investiataion, 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. Y'es,.
but I did not want then to bring any ot-er issue into tihe discussion
than the distinct issue made by M\ir. MIcCoImb. I did not want to ma'ke
any other issue than to pronounce what he had said in committee, in regard 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
M3obilier stocks -A. No; the issue was in reference to the fifty shares.




CREDIT  TOBILIER.                   257
That had been reported in 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 before them, and that thewhole 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, ill refraining
from going into it in my explanations in the House.
By MSr. NIIBLACK:
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 securing for him the additional fifty shares? —A. To get his rights.
Q. You 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 subject, whether you 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 supposed 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.   ldid 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 I had a
right to be interested in stock of any kind.
Q. The point in the public mind, as far as we are able to gather it, is
that the appearance of this tranisaction indicates that it was done in
17x




258                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
the name of your son-in-law, for your benefit. —A. That is the turn it
takes, andi 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 bhad
paid for the stock out of your funds, which seems to furnish a fair basis
Ior the theory, at least, that Alr. Neilson held the stock for your own
benefit. —A. IfI 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 lmy son-in-law. I felt that I 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 op'en transaction. As I have said, I considered myself as having a
perfect right, as a member of Congress, to own stock in the Credit MIobilier, but that I could not as a Government director of the Union Pacific
Riailroad Company; after I accepted the appointment, I thought I could
nof hold the stock without giving just cause for suspicion.
Q. IDo 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 connection with the Union Pacific Railroad, that as a Government director
of the Union Pacific Railroad I would not ownlithe stock at all. Let me
ask you, was it right or wrong for me to hold United States stocks during the war?
KMr. NI~BLACKI. 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 hlave refrained from holding any national-bank stock or Government bonds as an investment.
The WWITNESS. Do you suppose it is democratic for a man to own
nothing' If that is to be the doctrine, I am aftraid the democratic party
will never get any nlore 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 I have always voted against those
institutions in every form.
MIr. NTIBLACK. I do not want to go into that. I simply 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 WIT:NESS. What would you have done if you had had a right
like that, which had suddenly become very valuable?
AMr. NIBLACK. I do not know. I have never been placed in that position.
The WITNESS. I could have given it to Mr. Ames, Mlr. Dnurant, 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, MIr. 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, and the newspaper 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 imust invest in
something. I cannot allow it to remain idle. I have invested it at
various times, in stocks and bond.s of railroads, a portion in coal mines




CREDIT MOBILIER.                   25 9
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? I invested in Government bonds during 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?
Mr. NIBLAOCI. What I wanted was sim4ply to ask you whether you
now deemed it.wise to have transferred this stock, under the circumstances, to your son-in-law?
The WIT7NESS. It would have been more prudent, if I had intended
anything wrong, to have placed it in the name' of John Doe or Richard
Roe; I did what I did as an honest, open transaction. I have never desired 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. MC(PRARY:
Q. Your objection to holding stock was your appointment as a Government director, and not because of your being a member of Congress?-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 the books of the company.
Q. Did Mr. Neilson ever turn over to you any bonds or receive any
dividends?-A. No.
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 payment of a large sum of money, which he paid you at one time-$9,000 —
A. I do not think he paid me thfat personally; he paid it when I was
absent in W ashington here.
Q. You have no book from which you can tell precisely when and
how he paid you for that loan — A. I do not know. I keep a sort of
book —a pocket memoranda-book-like the one I have in my hand, and
alt 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 CHAIUIA~N:
Q. The committee would be glad to have you examine your cash-book,
bank-book, and any memoranda you have which will show anything in
reference to dealings between you and MIr. Neilson bearing upon this
subject. —A. I will do so. It ha.s been charged that this stock was
given me to influence my vote in Congress. Sometimes I voted on the
matters affecting the Pacific Railroad, 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 1MOBILIER.
this matter. On December 16, 1867, I made a speech in the Rouse
against the bill for changing the time for the annual meeting of the
stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, which speech is
published in the Congressional Globe. The bill was introduced, as was
understood, in reference to a raid Fisk was making on the Union Pacific
Railroad 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 3Mr. MEitRICi:
Q. You 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 soine 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 Fisk had broken up the
board of directors in New York. WVhile they were in session, Fisk,
with a deputy sheriff, caine in with an injunction from 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 not 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 certainly injured their credit very much.
By M3r. SMITIrERS:
Q. I find in the Globe of December 18, 1872, a portion of the speech
to which you referred, delivered in the House of Representatives 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 reportedl then, except that the word " let"
should be " loan?7'-A. Yes.
Q. I wish to ask you what that transaction was in which he loaned
you these shares? —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 Mir. Neilson to loan me the certificate made in
his name, all these fifty shares. There was, of course, no transfer to me
on the books, or anything of the sort.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     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 shares. 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 sufficient grounds of suspicion, to
investigate my conduct and satisfy itself whether or not I had been improperly or corruptly influenced in my official conduct; but here I appear by courtesy, and 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 understand 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 circumstances of that transaction indicate that I have been improperly influenced by it as a legislator.
When last before you, I stated that on two occasions I bought stock
and bonds in the Union Pacific rlailroad. I should with as little hesitatiopi 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 propriety 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 official
propriety have never been questioned, though they have exercised their
r:ight to vote whenever the Pacific Railroad has been before them. They
who purchased this stock after all legislation had passed, and whosevotes and influence could not have been affected in a solitary instance,
cannot be less innocent, and should have been saved the cruel humiliation of this public scandal.
My object in coming before the committee this morning is to state or
explain a little more fiully 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 before 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 Railroad, 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 recollection 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
purchased and held for me. A day or two since he came to my room




262                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
and said he had again been called before the committee, and sho'wed
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 Railroad managenent, had put me down for
stock in the Credit Mobilier, and assigned me what I received as dividends 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 more 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 Mir. Ames at one time
entertained the same view.
- I have two letters, gentlemen, which I had not thought to make public, 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.
Near the close of the last session of Congress, a gentleman came to
me and said that Hon. E. H. Rollins, who was a competitor for my
place in the Senate, was reporting that I was an owner in the Credit
3Iobilier, 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. Rollins, 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 satisfactory. On reaching Concord I found that, among other false and malicious 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 MSr. Rollins.  My telegram
reached -him in Washington. Not 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:
"WASHIIINGTON, D. C., June 9, 1872.
" DEAR SIR: I have your telegram asking me to give you the substance of the letter I wrote Rollins. You saw the letter; I added nothing 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 think youZ 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. J. W. PATTERSON."




CREDIT MOBILIERt.                    263
" NORTi EASTON, JTa12, 18, 17.
" DEAR Srt: I[ wrote you from Washington in reply to your telegram.
" I have your letters of the Sth and 12th this evening h ere onl my arrival home fronm Washington.
" I stated in that letter the substance of my letter to Ilollins.
" You saw the letter I wrote him, and there was nothing in that but
the truth; and that Mr. llollins should say that the Credit IMobilier of
America was a fraudulent concern, and thalt those engaged in it pe-rpetrated a fraud on the country, community, or its stockholders, is simply
anuntruth. The stockholders of that company contained some of the
besst men of the country, and Mr. Itollins knows it. Such men as John
J. Cisco, General Diix, William II. 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, Ilon.
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. Rollins should be ashamed to make such charges
if you hCad been a stockholder and manager in the comtcpacny, as you was not.
If Mr. Rollins can fild nothing against you worse than being a stockholder in the Credit AMobilier, you 1must be the purest manl in New
Hampshire or in th-e 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. WW. PATTERSON."
I have only to add that I have never received any certificate of stock
or other evidence of ownership in the Credit Mobilier, and am not enough
of a lawyer to know how I could draw dividends on iwhat I did not
own.
With this explanation I aml done with this exa'mination. Of the outrage dohe to the fair fame of imen who have lived without reproach for
half a century, by driving them into the gaze of the public with a scourge
of epithets which should be laid upon the lowest criminals with caution;
of the torture inflicted upon men, sensitive of their good name, by subjecting 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 CHIAIRMAN:
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 Railroad Company?-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 being a business man
myself, and asked him to invest it for me. He being a business man, I
gave him the money to invest. MIy understanding was that, he was to
invest it in the stock and bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company,
and to make the most of it he could for me.
Q. What was the amount?-A. Three thousand dollars.




264                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q6. Was anything said at the time about the Credit Mlobilier?-A.
No, sir; I have no recollectibn of a word being said.
Q. HWas anything said about the stock and bonds of the road? A.
Yes. He thought the bonds would appreciate ill 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 lRailroad. 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. I had a certificate for three hundred shares of stock. I do not remember the amount
of bonds. 1My 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? —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 haye 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 MIorton, Bliss & Co. — A. That was the firm
that made the sales for me.
Q. And whatever you put in thleir h1ands to sell was Union Pacific
Railroad securities?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever have a certificate of stock in the Credit MIobilier?
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 tlhe
stock I-A. No, sir; I supposed I had stock and bonds 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 yoI 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 M3obilier stock for you?-A. No,
sir; they did not.
By Mr. NiBLACK:
Q. While I recognize the seeming indelicacy of asking in regard to
private transactions, they have been so often referred to in the statements 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 gave Mr. Ames to invest from a friend
in this city, Ex-Maayor Emery? —A. Never; not a penny of it.
Q. Do you remenmber having a conversation with Mr. Emery in regard
to this investment? —A. Not in the least; no, sir.
By 3Mr. M{ERRICK:
Q. Dild Mr. Ames pa,y any dividends on this investment?-A. He
states that he paid dividends; I -understand that he accounted to me
for Union Pacific tRailroad stock he had bought and sold; he understandls it differently.




CREDIT MOBILIE1r.                   265
Q. Call 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 I could not give the amount of bonds.
Q. I mean the amount of money you invested in the lnrehase?-A.
I think $4,000.
Q. Was that money had of your own, or of money you borrowed for
investment?-A. I have no recollection of borrowing any money for the
purchase of bonds.
Q. You would know it, if you had borrowed money for that purpose?-A. I would be very likely to remember it. This is a matter,
hoiwever, that occurred four or five years ago.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. In this last transaction, you say that you invested so much money
and that you received so much in bonds and stock coining from that purchase?-A. I did.
Q. Mr. Ames had nothing to do with the negotiation or sales of these
securities?-A. ~No, 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. You 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 MIobilier — A. No, sir; not as I understood it. 3Mr. 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 himl to do it. I want a correct
understanding of the matter.
By Mr. AMES:
Q. You paid me $3,000 in January, 186S?-A. I do not recollect the
date.
Q. February 14, I paid you'$2,223, proceeds of a dividend on the
$3,000 I 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 dividend 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 CHAIRMAN:
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 IMr. Ames's statement.  I say that I do




266                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
not recollect it. When I received it, I supposed the money had come
from a sale of the Union Pacific Railroad securities, purchased for
mle.
By 3Mr. AMIES:
Q. WVhat I want to get at is whether you deny having received of me
these amounts for some purpose or other -. A. No; I do not deny it nor
affirm it.
Q. Do you mean us to understand that you have any doubt as to the
fact of receiving these sums, as noted down by me?-A. I mean to have
it understood precisely as I stated it; I do not recollect it. That I received some money of you once, I admit. I 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?- A. I
do not deny it, because I do not recollect it.
Mr. AMES. The difference, as I understand, between Senator Patterson and myself is, that, as I 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
1Mobilier stock of me and received no dividends. That is the only difference 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 point on which
we differ.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. Mr. Patterson says that he had at one time, but long before the
payment of this money, some talk about purchasing some Credit Mobilier stock. I understand him now to say that, at the time 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. He thought it was for
the purchase of, or investment in, the stock and bonds of the Union
Pacific Railroad. Now what was that transaction? What was said
between youn Mr. Ames, and Mr. Patterson, when he received the
maoney?
-Mr. ARvIE. My understanding was that I took the $3,000 to buy stock
of the Credit 3lobilier for him. That was my understanding.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. What was Mr. Patterson's understanding — A. I suppose he understood 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. AMiES. We didn't talk about anything of that sort.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. What was the date of this transaction?-A. January, 1868.
Q. You had had a conversation before upon that subject?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. How recently before?-A. I cannot tell you. I 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 MOBILIER.                    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 dividend 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 was transferred. It is my recollection that I handed him a certificate 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. I 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 Railroad stock at the same time I paid the
first dividend.
Q. Have you examined the books of the company to see if that transfer 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 pocket-book in small certificates.
Q. Upon the books which were before the committee no stock appears
to stand in MIr. 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. Your supposition is that you delivered a certificate 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 not 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 f-A. Done here in Washington.
Q. You think that was delivered to him at the time the thirty shares
of Union Pacific Railroad stock were transferred to him?-A. Yes, I
believe so, at the same time with the thirty shares of Union Pacific
Railroad 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 January?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. Patterson?-A. I 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 80 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 MOBILIER.
February, $2,223, 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. MIIERraICK:
Q. In addition to that you delivered to him the thirty shares, on the
14th February, of Union Pacific Railroad stock — 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 CHAIRMAN:
Q. The stock was received as a dividend? —A. The Union Pacific
Railroad stock was received as a dividend on the stock which he purchased.
Q. Is that all you received on that $3,000 — A. When this suit of
Mc(omb was brought up I think I held most of the dividends in Union
Pacific Railroad 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 certificate, 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 Railroad stock belonged to
his thirty shares of Credit Mobilier stock.
Q. How much did you pay him then, do you remember — A. Ithink,
as near as I can recollect, his thirty shares gave him about one hunidred
shares of Union Pacifice Railroad 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 fA. 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 f-A. I judged he did.
Q. Can you tell anything that was said between you and him upon
the subject during this period i —A. I do not know that I can, now,
anything in particular. I settled with him and gave him the dividends.
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. You 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. lMy 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. No, 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 you wrote that for what reason?-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 conscience — 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. II he could make anything out of that statement you had no objection?-A. I had no objection.
By Mr. MIERRICK:
Q. Did you suppose at the time that you and he thoroughly understood each other on the subject?-A. I did suppose he knew all 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. Patterson 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 Massachinsetts," and I do not understand yet what there is.




270                    CRE DIT'MOBILIER.
By Mr. KIBLACI:
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 Railroad stock and
80 per cent. in bonds; that you afterward delivered a cash dividend in
June, and an additional dividend in Union Pacific Railroad 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 Railroad stock was?-A. I think he had in all one hundred shares.
Q. About seventy shares in 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. Than why the necessity of covering up any such investment?A. There was no necessity; I do not know that I have covered up anything.
Q. Why, then, the necessity of carrying the stock in your name,
instead of transferring it to those you sold it to? —A. There was no necessity 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 the
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. Patterson 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. PATTERSONJ As I have already stated, so far as 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 feeling on that subject at all. I think it was equally honorable as a business 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 Railroad 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,




CREDIT 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 question 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. Eave you made any examiniation to see whether thirty shares of
Credit Mobilier stock were entered on the books of the company 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
Railroad stock as far back as 1868 — A. No, sir.
Q. Have you any account of sale of it from Morton, Bliss & Co.?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 lknow 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 option 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 understood it — A. I did, and that is my understanding now. I did not suggest 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 yout understood to be simply and literally
true upon the face of it, honestly and substantially true?-A. True in
every sense.
B3y Mr. A iES:Q. In your final settlement of Union Pacific Railroad stock you received 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 Railroad Company. That
I am positive about.
By the CIIAIRMAN:
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 Railroad, 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 Railroad stock?-A. No, sir.
Q. And if you did receive thirty shares in 1868, you never sold it?A. No, sir.




272                    CREDIT MOBILIEI.
By Mtr. IMTERRICK:
Q. Is Mr. Ames still the owner of certain stock for you?-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, M[r. Ames, that the second purchase was a regular
purchase of Union Pacific Railroad securities?-A. There was no Credit
fIobilier about it.
Re-examination of Mir. AciES:
Mr. AMES. There is a statement inll. 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 Railroad Company. It seems I was mistaken, and I wish to make this correction.
By Mr. NTIBLACK:
Q. If I have understood you, Mir. Amnes, 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 impropriety in it than holding property in 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 subject of having any connection with it?-A. It was ill 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 explicit acknowledgment to the country of their connection with it?
Why this apparently general effort to conceal? —-A. That I canInot explain. Here are Mr. Boyer, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Bingham, who have
come forward and stated frankly their connection with the Credit Iobilier, and who did not appear to feel ashamed of it.
Q. Why, without referring to individuals, have others taken a different
course?-A. I do not know other than I have stated.
Q. mhy 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 preselve 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 talking 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 perfectly 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 the slanders
heaped by everybody on the Credit Mobilier that they wante d to dodge
and avoid it all they could. I did not consider it anything wrong, and
never have.
By the CHAIIt Ai:
Q. You considered it a kind of skulking onr their part.-A. I did.
By Mr. NIBLACcK:
Q. Why did you consent to help them, then?-A. Because I am kind
hearted, and want to help everybody.
Testimony of Mr. AmES.
By the CHA[R1AVAN:
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?-A. Mr. MWashburn, if I recollect right, was complaining,
and-said there was complaint in Nebraska about the rates of freight on
the U nion Pacific RIailroasd, and he wanted to fix a rate by congressional legislation-something like that. I know that it was for our interest 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 1" Washburn's move "9 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 resolution before thate -A. I do 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 resolution for investigation?-A. I am not sure. I think I have that resolution here. It is as follows:' UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.
"Mr. WASUHTBRNE, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, offered the
following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:
18 x




.274                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
R "Resolvel, 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 RLailroad, 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 further accordance with the existing law."
There is nothing in this, however, in regard to a.n investifgation by
Congress, and this I notice was offered by  Mr. Washburhe, of Illinois.
and not by C. C. 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 recollection what it was.
Q. At what time was it that Mr. Washburn introduced his bill to regulate the fares of the Pacific Railroad — A. I cannot tell you. I think
the resolution he introduced was prohibiting the railroad charging more
than twice 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 any communication between you and Mr.
MCeomb, whether you said anything or wrote anything to Mr. MeC'Gomb
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 anything of tihe sort, and I never heard anything of the sort until I heard
his testimony.
Q. Did you ever, in your own mind or judgment, see any such beneficial working of your stock in Mr. Colfax?. —A. I never did.
Q. Dlid you ever have any idea that M>lr. 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.
IE 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. McCorDii. 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 Fvish to say that I have
received my check-book from the express company.
The ():AIIRlrAN, (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.
AMr. 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
Uman, but on getting my ceclk-book I do not find any such checks referred to by him.
The (CHAIrMAN. I understood Mr. Neilson to state that you paid it?




CREDIT MOBILEIERo                       275
Mr. BXoo3is. lHe 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. I had no doubt when Mr. Crane made
the announcement that it was my transaction, althaough he knew nothing of my aniairs with Mr. Durant. 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 $8100, no check for
$5,333, and no check of $7,000.
WASHIINGTON,  D. C., Tanuary 21, 1873.
H. S.. MCooin recalled and examinled.
By the CHAinMAN:
Question. In your testimony before the committee on a former occasion, in answer to some question which does not appear in this account
of it, (I think published in the New York Tribune,) you are made to
state as follows:
"' You asked me if I could remember anything else. I do now; I
remember something else very distinctly which I would like to state; reference is made in one of Mr. Ames's letters to Durant's action in New
York and Washllburnes move here; Mr. Ames wrote to me-I am not
sure but he told me-that E. B. Waghburne, of Illinois, in his place in
the House, had moved some kind of an investigation into the anffirs of
the Union Pacific Bailroad; I do not recollect the precise point; Mr.
Colfax was in the chair as Speaker of the House, andi by some parliamentary maneuver they blocked the game and defeated it; AMr. Ames
called my attention to it, and asked me if I did not think that, in Mr.
Colfax's case, the investment had p)aid; reference to the records of Congress would fix about the day, and show what Mr. Washblurne7s maotion was,
and what A1r. Colfax said."
That purports to be your testimony before thle committee; is it correctly 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 subject.-A. I have looked over his letters and miade 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 Walshington, on Sunday
night, she handed me the bundle of unimportant ones, whiclh I brought
along and have here with me.
Q. Have you examined the letters you received from Mr. Ames sufficiently 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 AMr. Ames upon that
subject.
Q. At the time you.made this inspection and selection of letters received from  Mr. Anmes 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 tlhem that I did




2 76                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
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, perhaps, 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 Mir. 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 lie might be further examined in regard to the statement in his
former testimony referred to.)
By lMr. NIBLACK:
Q. Were you not mistaken in the reference you made in that extract,
which has been read, to E. B. WVashburne, of IllinoiS; was it not C. C.
~Washburn, of 7Wisconsin?-A. If I recollect, in my original statement
I gave the name of E. B. WTashburne, as my impression. It was the
Washburn to whom Mr. Durant wrote that letter which was taklen out
of the post-office in New York.
Q. They were both in Congress, but I presumne it was C. C. Washburn
to whom you referred. Can you tell us any better now than you could
then the precise thing MIr. Ames referred to, either in his letter or conversation?-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 proceeding 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 proceedings.
Q. Can you state any more fully what Mr. Ames said about Mr. Colfax 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 Railroad; 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 — A. My impression is that it was a subject before
Congress which the Union Pacific Railroad Company felt to be of considerable 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. I 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. Amess
statement was this: that in speaking of " Mr. Washburne's move," he
said that by some parliamentary rule or move Mr. Washburn was




CREDIT MOBILIER                      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.n his letter what it was best to do in view of "'LYashbarne's move."
Perhaps he can tell what move he referred to.
Mr. ArES. That will not prove that I said anythirng about MV r. Colfaxt
If Mr.!iMcComb has any letteis I hope he will produce them. I wish
every letter I ever wrote to Mir. lMcComb may be produced.
The CAIM:ANs, (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 may wife, as I frequent]y did when I
came home in that way. You observe that I have not been in my office
to transact business siness   ce 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
banded me one of the packages. I did not look at the package until
two or three days 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 this comnmunication 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. Now 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 New 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, " Didant that pay," or "4 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 recollection is very general of the conversation that took place; the impression 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?-A. No, 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
iot give a nearer approximation to the date than that. We. were meeting 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 getting our contracts out for iron and other material for the rapid prosecution 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; but this matter of Mr. Washburne was more particularly impressed upon my mind
when Dr. Durant threatened to write to Washburne and have a. general
exposd of the whole affair, and did actually write the letter.
Q. Can you tell when it was? -.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 injnnction?-A. No, sir; it was in the spring of 1868.
Q. What was that quarrel of Mr. Durant about.-A. It was a general distrust of each other. That was about the substance of it. Mr.
Durant was not pleased with MIr. 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?
Q. You that disagreed?-A. I had nothing to do with any congressional action in any way. I did not come here to see anybody in connection with any Union Pacifie Railroad interest. iMr. Ames would
come on to New York fresh from Congress, and there had been wranglings between him and Dr. Durant, which finally became of sufficient
importance to induce Dr. Dnrant to write that letter to M r. Washburne.
Q. Was there discussion among these parities in New York in reference to anything 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 theUnion Pacific Railroad 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 think it was. I think it was in reference to thechange which was proposed in the election for directors for the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, and the disposition of what was known am
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 Washington 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 — 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's move" which was rentioned in the letter?-A. Yes7,
sir; it was that, whatever that was.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      279
By Mr. AiwES:
Q. Was this conversation in New York?-A. I think it was.
Q. In February, 1868?-A. I think it was in February or March,
1868. I do not recollect the exact time.,WASHINGTON, D. C., Januiary 22 1873.
OAKES AmlmE recalled and examined.
By the CHAIRM1AN:
Question. The committee wish to inquire a little more in detail in
relation to these various gentlemen in Congress whose naines have been
connected with this matter. WTe will begin at the beginning. Will you
state to the committee in reference to the conversation that took place
between you and 3Mr. Colfax in regard to the Credit Mobilier stoek —
Answer. I cannot recollect the. exact conversation. I agreedl to get
for Mr. Colfax twenty shares of Credit Mobilier stock.
Q. Do you remember what time that agreement was — 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.
QY. 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 youlsell the bonds? -A. I sold the bonds.
Q. He was to have the stock at par?-A. Yes, at par and interest.
Q. Can you give us the date of his check?-A. I think Ii can; I think
the check was dated March 5, 1868, and was for $534.72.
Q. H3ow did you keep your accounts?-A.  I kept them on scraps of
paper.
Q. And this paper you have in your hand iW the original rmemorandurn 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
cheelk 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. aWere 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 f-.A. Twelve hundred dollars.
Q. Hlave 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 anything from himn except that time. Hie paid me for the balance of the
stock, and I paid him a cash dividend.
Q. Have youn ever offered him the railroad stock you received as a
dividend?-A. Never.




280                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 committee the other day?-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
yotu -A.. le 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 imy misfortune, or something like that.
Q. How la.te 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 brougbt 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 imade 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
it? —A. No, 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 MIr. Colfax, two years
ago or thereabouts, was anything said between you and him in reference 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, certainly I should pay him back again.
Q. Did he call upon you to deliver the stock? —A. Io, 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. IHave there ever been any dividends upon this Union Pacific Railroad stock?-A. No, sir.
Q. There was nothing to pay anybody upon that stock?-A. lNo, sir.
Q. You have had no conversation with Mir. 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. Coifax understand that this
was a dividend on this Credit 3Mobilier stock?-A. I suppose so; I do
not know; I so understood it. That is what it was; whether he understood the matter is more than I know; I do not know that I gave hinm
any explanation. I gave him the cheek.
Q. 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 you remember whether he made any inquiry -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 $1,20g 0?-A. Not to my knowledge.
It did not belong to me.
Q. You never made any claim uponmu hiZin if  it, a'nd di' not supjose
you had any right to?-A. No, sir.
Q. These 5341 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 understood that 1[ sold him $2,000 worth of stock. The first dividend, 80
per cent. in bonds, and that check for $534, paid for the stock. That
was my supposition.
Bv fr. iE RmnIC:
Q. In what order of time were these two dividends paid, of $1,200 and
$500? —A. He paid me $500 in Mtarch, 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 transaction? —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?-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 simply 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 memorandumn-books are from
the memorandum-book referred to by Mr. Kennedy in his testimony?A. I presume so.
By the C A>I iAtXN:
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-atArms' book to see if my entries were correct, and I find they are.
By Mr. McCEARY
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 0?-A. I think I did - I think I told them
all.
Q. Youi do not remember what he said when you informed him of
that?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did you not understand that this sale of stock to RMr. Colfax was
rescinded; that the trade was given up, and that he relinquished
the stock to you?- 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 4able 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; that 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 correct?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. This was about the opening of the session of l867-'68, as you stated
to the chairman to-day, and as you previously stated in your examination 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?-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 statement 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? -A. I told you therel
had been a dividend of 80 per cent. in bonds, and I gave you the proceeds of that in part payment of the stock. There had been also a dividend of 100 per cent. Union Pacifie 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 f-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, althought
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 $2,000




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     283
from December to IMarch, about three months?-A. I charged you interest 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 amount 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 committeee?-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 sh6w me this private mlemorandum-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 statement, 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; a,nd- 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. Youl did not sell the stock?-A. No. sir.
Q. Alid you regarded me as the proprietor of that Credit Aiobilier
stock.? —A. Certainly; you paid me for it; it belongs to you; it has
never been returned.
Q. You stated in your first testimony, 1" 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 the 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. I don't recollect that I said anything. I do not remember the conversation any further than that you said you 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 to 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 I said to yon 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 did 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 "1 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 subsequently you said you thought 1 was the equitable owner-?-A. All I




284                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
know is wh-at 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.
Q. 3Ir. Ames says that he derived that information from. my testimony,
yet I read his statement from a paper published Tuesday morning, January 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 Vyou.
Q. I testified before this committee:." The very day I heard this remark I told Mr. Ames that no profits, present or prospective, could
induce. me to buy into a lawsuit I that I must therefore recede entirely
from the transaction between us, as I did not waut 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."Y Do you remember anything of that transaction?-A. No, sir.
Q. You do not remember my saying that I did not want to buy into
a lawsuit?-A. I do not now.
Q. You don't remember that, when I said I manted to be  0 off." —A.
No, sir.
Q. Is it not probable that I based my desire to be off upon this litigation?-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, toaa gentleman, after you had heard me testify,
that you believed my statement was substantially correct?-A. I don't
remember saying that.
Q. WCill you testify that you did not say that? —A. I do not recollect
that I did.
Q. IMr. 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. Crounse stated to me that Mr. Ames
so told him.
The WITNESS. When was that?
Mr. COLFAX. The 7th of January. Now, when I testified on the 7th
of January, and asked you to crossrexamiine me, if the statement I made
was not correct, why did not you contradict me then.-A. I had not examined 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 hoime,
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-atArms e-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-Armls room.
Q., Now, when I asserted., in my 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 $1,200?-A. I was not in a
position to contradict you, because I had not exarmined 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?-A. Well, I think I have
done so.
Q. Why not have done so at first? Why didn't you tell it when I




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    285
was here and gave my testimony? Why didn't you state that you had
paid me $1,200?-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, 1868.-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 offered 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 suplpose 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.
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?-A. I do not recollect.
Q. Did you not proffer me some small suit 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 oft; 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 (o not remember that I did.
Q. You testified a few moments ago that there was some rem ark made
by me about my giving up these $500?-A. That you told me 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 presume 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 recollect seeing you over there in the Senate, but what was said I do not remember. 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 supposed so; I got it from you.
Q. Then you were testifying partly from my recollection and partly
from your own. Did you have any other checks on the Sergeant-at



286                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
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. It was payable to "S. IC. or
bearer."
Q. Paid to mie by the Sergeant-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 cheek
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 talking?-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 $1,200?-A.   I
am positive I gave you the cheek.
Q. And then I ask you again, why did yod not say so when you testiRfed in December?-A. I testified that I had paid you the dividends.
Q. You stated in your first examination that you could not remember having paid me any dividends. Then, in your cross-examination,
you said that possibly you might have paid me, but you were not certain.-A. Yes; now I am certain.
Q. Then this transaction had passed out of your mind, so that yoen.
were not certain then?-A. I could not remember the amount at allf
until I had examined my books. I examined my books when I went
home, and when I returned to Washington I compared my memorandums with the checks the Sergeant-at-Arms had on file; and 1 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 afterward, and I am ready to settle with you.
Q. Did you ever tell me you were ready?-.A. Nol  I did not tell you;
I was waiting for the decision of this suit by IMcComb. 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. 1 (lid 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 onei —A. I think not.
Q. Did you ever give me a share of Union Pcifie Railroad stock?A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever give me a bond of the Union Pacific Railroad Company?-A. No, sir: I sold the bonds and accounted to you for them.
Q. You sold them without lly authority?-A. Yes, sir.
Mr. COLFAX. I want again to state to the committee, as I before




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    -287
ated, that I do not remember ever having receivedl one dollar from Mr.
Ames, and I hope to be able to prove that fact. I think there is a mistake 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 Miobilier stock was
ever rescinded  -A. I do not recollect it.
Q. Do you now remember anything in connection with any conversation 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?-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. No distinct recollection; no, sir.
Q. Have you any impression of any such thing being said between you
and hini?-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. C(olfax 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? —A. No; I deducted that from the price of the
stock.
Q. You deducted from thie price of the stock the proceeds of tho
bonds, and he gave you a check for the balance; that is that transaction? -A. That is the transaction.
Q. And subsequently when you got the money dividend you paid that
money by a cheeck 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? —A. Yes, sir; it was his dividend in money.  The stock
dividend I still hold; the Credit 3Mobilier stock I also hold, although he
has paid me for it.
Q. There 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 reniembrance 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 MOBILIER.
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. -fHave you any recollection that there was any cash dividend declared 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 MIr. Colfax was a correct account of the transaction e —A. No,
sir.
By Mr. MCCRARY:
Q. You do not recollect anything about talking with Mr. Colfax in'
regard to repurchasing the stock fromhim for a nominal 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 company 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., D.                            CR.
1868.                              1868.
To 20 shares stock C. M'I.  March 5. By cash-.......$.... $534 72.
of A.-............ $2, 000 00 Feb. 14. Dividends of bonds: U.
To interest.-.       86 72   P. R. $2,000.80, $1,600, less 3 per
June 19. To cash.- --—.... —.. 1,200 00   cent......................... 1, 552 00
June 17. By dividend collected
for his account -1........... 1, 200 00
3, 286 72                          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 before, I took the stock back from him and settled with him.
Q. You have heard Mr. Wilson's statement here?-A. Yes, sir; and.




CREDI r MOBILIER.                      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?-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 the dividend
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 (ldo not know but you stated before, when the transaction was
closed up and the money paid back. —A. I think it was some time (luring that same year; in the last of that year or the first of the year following; that is my recollection.
Q. The statement of Mr. Wilson upon that subject, you say, is substantially the truth? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. In relation to Mr. Patterson, of the Senate, I believe all your transactions with him were all gone over yesterday?-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 forlnier 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 trailsaction between you and Mr. Allison in connection with that stock — A.
Mr. Allison, as I stated in my testimony, agreed to buy ten shares of
Credit Mobilier stock. I received his dividends of 8t) 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?A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did they amount to? —A. They amounted to $800, less 3 per
cent., 8776.
Q. Hie paid you the balance? —A. He paid me the balance.
Q. Have you some mllemoranduml of what that balance iwas?-A. The
balance was $271.
Q. Wnhat is the date of that paymnent?-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 meinorandun ifrom
which you are now testitying? —A. I got that froml the entries oil 11ty
books at home, and I find, in the office of the Sergeant-at-Aruis here,
the check indorsed by Mr. Allison.
Q. Did you say it was indor(sed byy him? —A.   am not sure about'that. I found in his account, charged to hii oni thlat (date, the balance
covering the amtount due otl that stock, and the clheck tlbr that amouInt.
Q. The balace whichll was due Mr. Allison tor this stock 1I ulllerstand
he} gave you a check for on the 8ergaln't-t-at-Arls? —A. No. He drew
the money himsell, I sumppose, and paid me the mon11ey.
19 x




290                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. You got this entry at that date from 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 paid to Mr. Allison e?-A. About
the middle or 30th of January, or somewhere thereabout.
Q. You paid that money divid:end to him by check on the Sergeantat-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. Waes this stock ever transferred to Mr. Allison? —A. No, sir.
Q. It still remains in your name?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. W~hat has become of the stock received afterward as dividends
upon it?-A. I have not given anybody any stock since July, except to
)ir. 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 I 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 Railroad stock and Credit Miobilier stock.
Q. You gavre hiim the certificates then? —A. I gave him. the certificates,
both the ten shares of Credit 3Mobilier stock and ten shares of Union
Pacific Railroad stock. I thought it was returned this ],ast 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. WVhen did he receive the stock? —A. He received it at the time lihe
paid me for it.
Q. He then took a certificate?-A. lie then took a certificate.
Q. And kept it until last March — A. I 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? —A.
Yes, sir.
Q. When dlid he receive his certificate of Union Pacific Raiiroad
stock? —A. At the same time lie received his Credit Mobilier stock.
There was a dividend of 100 per cent. on Union Pacific tailroad stock
at the same tine 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 postmnarked Dubnque,
INarch 31. The envelope I hand you is the one it came in.
Q. Are you confident it was last March I —A. I do not know.
Q. When do you think it was?-A. I 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 himln, but I do not know that it did. It was not indorsed
with any name.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     291
Q. Do you 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 envelope 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, ir.
I suppose he might. have considered the returning of the stock as explanation enough.
By Mr. MVICCRARY:
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 de not know of anv.
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. INo, sir.
Q. You are sure you gave him the stock in person. AMight you not
have sent it by mail to him?-A. I am not sure. I do not know that
that would make any difference. Hie 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 — A. There was something 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 Mir. Allison say at that time about it — A. There was
something said about a lawsuit, and nmy 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 solne tinie 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 lA. I do not recollect how the thing was to be.
Q. Did he say he did not care what you called it, so that lie 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
1Mobilier after the lawsuit was commenced.
Q. You do not know whether he has received any dividends that have
not been returned to you? —A. lie 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 -i-A. He paid me $271 and received $600; that was 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 MOBILIER.
By the CEiAIRniAN:
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 nominal 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. DIid you pay him anything? —A. I thinkl I did.
Q. How much? —A. I do not recollect. Some small sum; a mere
nominal suIm.
Q. Did you throw down a five-cent piece, or something like that?A. Somlewhere in that neighborhood; not a very big sum.
Q. Have you any idea when that was? —A. I think it must have been
in the sunmmer of 1868, after this suit was brought.
Q. Why did he not return you the certificates then — A. I did not
ask him. I think1 he had not them here. I supposed so; I do not know
anDything about it.
Q. Was anything said about his returning them to you?-A. I do not
remiember. I supposed if I bought it he ought to return it to me.
Q. Did you 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 ally 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 these certificates were returned to you by mail, was it something 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 tfar back as 1868 - A. I think so.
Q. And you (lid 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.
Bjy Mir. MEURUICK:
Q. Do I understand you to mean to convey the idea that this form of
sale, for five cenlts, 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 him was that he was to hold the
stock for rme at the tine the money was paid.
Q. 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
Q. It was therefore a device to avoid his being responsible for your
laxwsuit.-A. I think it was mixed up with these malicious charges of'bribery which are imade in the suit of McComb. That is the origin of
this scandaLl.
(Q. Do N on mean that Mr. Allison demurred at the pecuniary responsil)iity  lwhich migiht be involved in it, or to some charge of imnpropriety?A. Some charge of impropriety, I suppose. I do not know his ideas any
further than that.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       293
Q. Did this envelope in which 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 hadc 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 envelope.
Q. Did you ever receive a check from him?-A. Yes, sir; but that
rwas in another matter.
Q. WVhat was that.?-A. An operation I went into with him in 18657
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 thaat was ever repaid to
you in any form?-A. No, sir.
The following memoranda from which witfness testified in regard to
Mlr. Allison was here placed in evid(ence:
W. B. A.
Dr.                                Cr.
1868.                              i 1868.
April 24. To ten shares Credit Mo-  April 24. By dividend of Union Pabilier of America stock  $,1, 000   cific bonds, 80 per cent.,
Interest on same. —------   47      $800, at 97 per cent.... $776
April 24. By cash of himr..-..... 271
1, 047 June 17. By dividend received for
June 19. To check     -.-...,... 600      his accounIt6.6. (00
1,647                             1, 647
Q. I think you stated before in your testimony that neither Mr.
Conkling, Mr. Fowler, nor Mr. Bayard, whose names have been mentioned 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 vou?-A. No, sir.Q. Neither of them were ever holders of the Credit Mobilier stock to
your knowledge?-A. RNot to my knowledge.
Q. You have no information that they were? —A. No, sir.
By the CIHAIRIAN:
Q. In your letter of the 30th January, 1868, to Mr. McOomb, you say,
"I have placed some in New York, or have agreed to; ) what was that,
you placed in New York?-A. I let Mr. Ham1  have some.
Q. The secretary of the Credit Mobilier — 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 0?-A. I did not let any go to Noew
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?-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 becoming 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 inl reference to this transaction, 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 any way?-A. No, sir; only
the advantage of being abused.
Q. Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, you stated, took some stock andc
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 f — A. It was about
the time of the rest of them.
Q. Have Syou 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 recollect he pfiid 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 Mlobilier stock — A. Not in Credit Mlobilier stock; he had ten
shares of that.
Q. Did you pay him any dividends f.-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 mae
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.I
ended between you and Mar. Dawes f-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. lHe dicd
not tahe it; he got frightened about Mr. Larned and the Duff Greenr
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 back 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 settlement, in 1868.
Q. That settlement embraced other things besides this?-A. Yes, sir..




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     295
Q. And there was a balance due you on the settlement for which he'2jave 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:1nd Mr. Dawes — A. I had, but I gave it to him when I made the set~lement.
Q. You believe that so far as your dealings are concerned with Mr.
Dawes, you settled, giving him 10 per cent. interest upon his investment, and nothing more?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you -any memoranda by which you can give us the date
when you received this 81,000 of Mr. Dawes?-A. I thinkl in the mein.
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 five clays after.
Q. Was that the $1,000 you got, you think, in January, 18G68, and
not all in one sum?-A. No, 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 iMr. Garfield ten shares of the Credit kIobilier 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
tilme.
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
lef at balance drue him of $329, which I paid him. That is all the transaction between us. I did not deliver him any stock before or since.
That is the only transaction, and the only thing.
Byv Mr. MErmIC: ~
Q. The $329 which you paid him wn as 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 417; 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?-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 aggregate overpaid the price of stock and interest $3'29, which you paid
him? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. How was that paid? —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 $3297 did you understand it was the balance 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                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Why did he not receive his certificate?-A. I do not know.
Q. Do you remember-any conversation between you anad him in the
adjustlment of these accounts f-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
fronm his mind, however.
Q. Wias this the only dealing you had with him in reference to any
stock e-A. I think so.
Q. Waas it the only transaction of any kind? —A. The only transaction.
Q. Has that $329 ever been paid to you?-A. I have no recollection
of it.
Q. Have you any belief that it ever has e.-A. No, sir.
Q. IDid you ever loan General Garfield $300?-A  NTot to imy knowledge; 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
-t should go to suit him.
Q. What we want to get at is the exact truth.-A. I have told the
truth in my statement.
Q. When you paid him $329, did he understand that he borrowed
that money from you?fA. I do not suppose so.
Q. Have you any belief now that he supposed so?-A. NTo only friom
what he said the other day. I do not dispute anybody.
Q. Wie want your judgment of the transaction.-A. TMy 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 f-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 Railroad'stock on these ten
shares  A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did General Garfield ever receive these?-A. lNo, 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 — A. No, sir.
Q. Has he ever called for it — A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever offered it to him — A. No, sir.
Q. Has there been any conversation in relation to it?f-A. io, sir.
Q. Has there ever been anything said between you and him about
rescinding the purchase of the tenll shares of Credit Mobilier stock f 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 f-A. Since this matter came up.
Q. Since this investigation commenced? -A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. MIERRICc:
Q. Did you consider at the commencement of this investigation that
you held these other dividends. which you say you did not pay to him,
in his behalf?.  Did you regard yotrself as custodian of these dividends
for him? —A. Yes, sir; he paid for his stock and is entitled to his dividends.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     297
Q. Will the dividends come to him 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 presume by a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms. I find there are some checks
filed without 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 hle 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. Yes, sir. Hte 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 mny
room and said he had been accused of all kinds of crimes and misdemneanors. I told him I had made no such statement aes 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 next
day is your recollection of what occurred?-A. It agrees with my, recollection, 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. Didl 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 of
his account with Mr. Garfield was placed in evidence:
J. A. G.,                      Dr.
1868.    To 10 shares stock Credit Mobiler of A  -      1...... $1, 000 00
Interest...-,.....-................-..   47 00
June 19. To cash..............................   329 00'
1,376 00
Cr.
1868.    By dividend bonds, Union Pacific Railroad, $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
Q. Do you desire to make any additional statement in regard to Mr.
Kelley?-A. No. Mr. Kelley's transaction was about the same as that
of Mr. Garfield.




298                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Give the details of it and whether he agreed to take some stock.A. Yes, sir.
Q. W~hat amount? —A. One thousand dollars.
Q. Was that about the beginning of this same session of 1867 or
1868 0?-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. You received the bonds and sold them, and did you receive the
money 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.
1 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 takllen
iup 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 you did he'understand that
that was the balance of his dividend after paying for his stock?-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 fromn you tohim,
that he borrowed it of you?-A. I do not think so; still, I haveloaned
money to Mir. KSelley several times. He said the other day that I loaned
him $1,)000. I loaned him  $750 the 27th September, and I think it
probable he put that with this $329, to make the 91,7000. I think he
has it in his nmind that he owes me $1,000.
The  emonrandum  from which witness testified in reg'ard to fMr. Kelley is as follows:.
W. D. K.                         Dr.
1868.       To 10 shares stock Credit ]Mfobilier of A.......i, 000 00
In  terest.................................  47   00
January 19. To cash...-................................... 329 00
1 376 00
Cr.
1868.     By dividend of bonds Union Pacifie  Railroad
$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 ~?-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 Ar. Kelley after that in reference to this transaction in Credit Mobilier stock? -A. Yes, sir; he in



CREDIT MIOBILIER.                    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?A. I suppose so.
Q. You contiue to hold that stock for him? —A. I do, and that is all
Ir. Kelley has received out of it, the $309.
By the CHAIRMIAN:
Q. Do you remember the date of that cash dividend? —A. About the
middle of June, I think. I deposited the money with the Sergeant-atArms 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. IDo 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 M3[r. Scofield?A.  ir. 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 with him about his taking' some of this
stock?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. YWas this about the first of this same session do yon think? -A.
Yes, sir: he gave me money and I gave him a receipt for it, and was
to get stock for him —81,000.
Q. (Can you give the cdate 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 hir. Scofield? —A. I do not
recollect exactly how I did settle it; I settled it up and we squared the
transactions.
Q. IMr. Scofield says you agreed to abandon this contract about the
Credit Mobilier shares, and that he took other securities and invested
his money in them i?-A. Yes, he took some other bonds; he took some
Cedar Rapids 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 dividends, and 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 himn
his dividend of $600, 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 AMobilier 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 Railroad stock.
Q. Have you some memorandum  of the dealings between yon and




300                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
lr. Seofield' —A. I do not find any. I find the check which I gave
him for $600 was dated the 22d of June.
Q. That you supposed to be a money dividend? -A. A money dividend; yes, sir.
Q. Yon 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 lie also received the $600 6?-A. Yes, I think he received
that; my memorandumn 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 thiling was finally adjusted'- A. I do not. We had other
transactions. I sold him other bonds-sold him bonds severalitimes.
Q. In your settlement, you accounted for the 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 been the owner of the stock, and
whether you accounted to him for them in the settlenment you finally
made -— A. I know it was settled satisfactorily to both of us. I am
very sure he received Union Pacific Railroad stock, and that his returning me the receipt for Credit Mobilier Stock was considered the same as
paying me back the thousand ldollars 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. Nlo,
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 recollection what the balance was or how it was paid, whether I paid him or
lie me. I have no recollection. I know we settled it up.
Q. The settlement with Mr. Scofield was on a different basis, then,
froum your settlement with Mr. Kelley and Mr. Garfield which you produced here?-A. Yes, sir; Mr. Scofield paid me the money to get the
stock with, and in the settlement he did not take the stock and returned 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 mly 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 together 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 correct, and I have nothing to stay in relation to it, except that he got me
mixed up with his Nevada Mining Company, which I had nothing to
do with.




CREDIT AOBILIER.                       301
Q. You received $2,000 from him to invest inl 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 testimony 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. I 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 Railroad 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 oursettlement 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 tlle 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 stocli, you accounted to him for $800 more eA. 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 on the stock?-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 wals settled? —eA. *Yes, sir.
Q. WVere you present when J. F. Wilson made a statement before the
committee the other day?-A. I was.
Q. HBave you anything to say in reference to that statement of Mr.
Wilson, in which you differ from it?-A. No, sir; that a grees with me
exactly.
Q. You wish to make no qualification of it?-A. None whatever.
Q. The whole transaction was stated by himl as it occurred? —A. Yes,
sir; that is all square.
Q. There is one gentleman whose mnane appears on this list about
whom as yet no inquiry has been tmade; that is Mr. Painter.-A. I suppose AMi. Painter had a right to buy it if I chose to sell it to him. Ile
was not a member of Congress.
Q. Did he buy it?-A. Yes.
Q. And paid foir 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 1price.
Q. At the time of this transaction, when you were making these contracts for the sale of Credit Mobilier stock to various members of Congress. was there anything pending before Colmgress, on which legislation
was desired or expected inreference to the interests of the UTnio.n Pacific
Railrotad Colmpanly?-A. No, sir. Nothing was expected, and nothing
wanlted, acnd nothing asked for.
Q. 111 one of your letters there is some allusion to'" Washburn's
move."7  That letter, I tbink, was late in January, 1868. Wha t love of
CWashburn did you refer to~.-A. I gave 3 ou a little slip yesterdayt; that
I suppose -was whlat I referred to. C. C. Washburl nma.de a move somewhere about that time to regulate the rates of traffic over the road.




302                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Have you examined to see when that subject was started in Congress?-A. No, sir; I have not.
Q. Is that the thing you refer to in your letter as " Washburn's
move f "-A. I presume so; I do not know of anything else.
Q. Was that resolution or bill of Mr. Washburn's, looking to the passage 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 don'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 improvident 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 regulating the freights or fares referred to in your letter to Mr. McComb fA. I think so.
Q. You infer from that that it had been introduced earlier than the
date of that letter f-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. Ho, sir.
Q. Was that a matter about which you who were interested in the railroad felt an interest, to pass it?-A. Not much; io, 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, supplies, 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. MErRICic:
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 e he had been promised fift
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 MOBILIER.                    303
Q. He had the promise originally from Mr. Bushnell? —A. I think
from Mr. Bushnell and from Mr. Durant, and I don't know but Mc-,Comb. I know I 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?-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?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did he pay you for it in the same way as those other gentlemen
did I-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 between the 80 per cent. of the dividend and the par of the stock and
interest.
Q. Your transaction with him was identical, in point of time, with
-that of these other parties? —A. Yes, sir.
By the CHAIIRi;AN:
Q. Had you ever any reason to suppose Mir. 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 ny supposition; I never heard anything else
suggested.
Q. Have you any reason to suppose he held it for anybody else?A. No, sir.
By MIr. NIBLACK:
Q. In your letter of January 25, 1868, to Mr. McComb, produced in
his original testimony, 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.
BYy BMr. MIERRcImi:
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. Scofield ten, Mr. Patterson thirty, Mr.lPainter thirty, Mr. Dawes ten, Mr.
Bingham twenty, Ir. Coltax 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
TMr. 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?-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
hlave any negotiationis with him?-A. I had some talk with him.




304                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Did you make any arrangement with himn in regard to this stock'?A. No, sir.
Q. How was'the negotiation broken off?-'A. lie declined to take it;,
that is how it was broken off.
Q. Did he at any titne 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.
WVASHINGTON, D. C., January 22, 1873.
WILLIAIM 13. ALLISON, United States Senator-elect from the State of
Iowa, having been duly sworn, made the following statement:
I desire to state my recollection of my connection with the Credit
Mobilier. Mr. Ames and 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 himt 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 originally an authorized branch of the Union Pacific Railroad, and afterward
called the Sioux City and Pacific Railroad, 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
fturther about it.
After some time, Mr. Ames sent me ten shares of Credit Mlobilier
stock and ten shares of Union Pacific stockl, with some memnorandcutnl
containling a statement showirng that the stock was nearly full-paid by
the  proceeds of sales of bonds which were accretions upon the stock.
Tlis statement disclosed, I think, a small balance due upon the stock.
How this balaiice was paid, i do not now remeniber. I received a diPTidend of $600 in June, 1868, in the form of a check on the Sergeant-atArms of the House, which seems to have been placed to mly credit with
him on the 28th day of June, amnd 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 not 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 anything, was said until the winter of 1868, when I returned to Washington. I then said to Mr. Ames that I would not hold the stock, and
gave my reasons therefor, which he may recollect, or may not. This
was when I returnel to Washington, in the, fall session of 1868-'269; at
least when I saw him  on my return, perhaps not the first day or the,
first week 6f the session. He said, very well; that I could return it to
him. The matter was not finally adjusted, however, unitil February, 1
thinlk, 1869, when I included wlhat was the di-ff'rence between the dividend and the amount unpaid on the stock Fwhien. sent to nle in a check,
which I drew to his order on New York, which also included another'
mal.tter, and which was paid to him.
I llave had a conversation with Mr. Aimes in relation to this, and he
says he does not recollect that the dividend was included'. I recollect.




CREDIT 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 papers, was in the city of New York.
I offered to give him a'n 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 may 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 considerable 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. Amnes has somen account about the stock, of which I know
nothing.
I desire to say, in addition to this, that, having made this adju-stmeet
with 3Mr. Ames, I received no profits, and realized nothing whatever
from the transaction in any. mlanner.
By Mr. NIBLACIK:
Question. Mr. Ames produced this morning the envelope in whichl the
certificates were inclosed to himn 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, 1 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 returned them to Mr. Ames. I have no recollection of sending any other
letter to Mr. Ames since M3arch, 1871, and I presume, therefore, tha~t
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 mlanner, or in tile Union Pacific Railroad stock arising
therefrom.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. Your original arrangement with Mr. Ames was in January, 1868?
-A. No; I should sa;y now, having the dates, that it was at a later
period. I had no particular arranDgements 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 Congress; 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 mon ey dividend.
20 X




306                     CREDIT MOBILIER
Q. That was in June, 1868?-A. It seems to b)e; Mr. Ames's check is
dated June 20; 1 see his memorandum makes it the 19th; I must have
received it between the 20th aind 25th of June; I do not precisely understand 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 wrhen thlat lmemortandum was made, as I understand 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 committee may call that a dividend; I do not so call it, because I did not
receive, it; M3r. 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 sa,ys I did, and therefore 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 relation 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
statei mient of course I know nothing about. I only mention the fact that
these twTo classes of stock were sent to me. It may be that I paid Mr.
Ames $27i. Until to-day I should have stated that my belief was that,he balance due in the purchase of the stock was taken out of the $600
dividend, but hle may be correct, and I think now he is, except as to
amount.
Q. Did you a pply to him originally for stock, or did he propose to
you to take it.2-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 I had frequent conversations 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 improper in my holding it.
Q(. Were you cognizant of any agitation in Congress, during that
winter, in regard to the Union Pacific Railroad Company? —A. No, sir,
I was not.
Q. Were you aware of any movement by Mr. Washburn?-A. There
rnay have been movements made by Mr. WYashburn, but I do not remember 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 movements?-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 mind a;t the time. I do not think I knew that Mr.
McComb had a lawsuit until I saw the publication in1 thel  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 I 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 companyy?A. It was brought immediately to my attention in that way. My constituents 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 impropriety in holding this stock during the session of Congress, commencing
December, 1867?-A. No, sir; I do not think it had. I do not think I
regarded it as improper. I will say, as you have reached that point,
that the only legislation I know of in reference to the Union Pacific
Railroad during that period was in 1869, when I was a member of Congress, and that I understood to be in the nature of restrictive legislation. I know thaft those who had criticised the management of the
Union Pacific Railroad voted for this legislation, as well as the friends
of the road.
Q. You had parted with your interest in the Credit MAobilier at that
time.-A. Entirely. I had no interest whatever. I remember that
Mlr. WTashburn, who was not understood to be especially friendly to this
road, voted for that proposition. The legislation which occurred in
1871, to which I have seen reference made, passed the House while I
was out on a conference committee, in connection with Mr. Randall,
of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, so that I did not vote
upon that proposition.
By Mr. 1MCCROARY:
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? —A. He did. He said, "I will buy
the stock balck 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 remember 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 ~-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 had
the stock.
Q. Mtr. Ames has left the impression, perhaps, thft. that was a mere
ruse, so that the stock might be (considered yours in case 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 somelitigation
about the stock, ortabout 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. Youlhad made up your mind after your re-nomination to return
it — A. Yes. I 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 heretofbre. This contest, I will say, began
early in 1868, when the newspapers began to assail me as to the impropriety of my holding an interest in the Sioux City and Pacific Railroad.
I thought, as I said, that it was a prudent thing to have no interest it
these matters; and I want to say that I have no interest in any matter
covertly that I anti not willing the public, at any timee, 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. I caln 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 conversation 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 conversation between you and MlIr. 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
thlat was not 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 papers to Dubuque f —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 returned 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 reference 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 muemory, without memoranda before me, except as
to the check, and not having charg'ed my mind with the details, I may
be in error as to some of them.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      309
WASIINGTON, D. C., January 22, 1873.
N. G. ORDWAAY sworn and examined.
By Mr. COLFAX:
Q. You are Sergeant-at-Arms off tRepresentatives  - A.
Yes, sir.
Q. You have accounts with members from time to timed-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 public 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
mnileage? —A. The public account books are filed in the Treasury Departminent at the close of every Congress.
Q. In your public account there could not be anything except pay and
mileage — A. N'o, 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 salary and mileage, but I did not find anything else.
Q. That is an account of my private deposits.-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mlr. Ames deposited in 1868 a large sum. of money with you, upon
twhich 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.
Amnes? —A. Yes; he drew more than his salary and mileage considerabl 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 memnbers?-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 iMr. Ames wrote down on a memorandum or piece
of paper, opposite your name.
Q. "S. C. or bearer?"-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Hlow much was that check for? —A. Ay recollection is that it was
for $1,200.
Q. Is there any imldorsement on it? -A. I think not.
Q. Do you remember ever having paid ine any draft or check from
Mr. Ames?-A. I have no such recollection, anld 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 arTangement in my office is, now, that he receives all the money and pays
it out.
Q. What is the name of your paying-teller?-A. N. A. Fuller.




310                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Was he your paying-teller in 1868?7-A. Not in 1868. 1 think
Thomas P. Cheney was then acting in that capacity, with my sony
George L. Ordway, as assistant.
Q. Were there any other checks drawn by Mr. Ames, payable by initials?-A. I think there were some.
Q. What were the initials?-A. I do not recall any of themn 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 subject only a few moments ago. I have not looked at the day-book; nothing 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 sutbject? —A. He did say
something when I came in this morning; I do not remember what it
was. It was nothiing to your injury, I can assure you.
By the CHAIRMIAN:
Q. You have no personal r1ecollection about these matters' -A. Not
the least.
Q. This check would not have been likely to have been paid by your
whoever it was paid to?-A. No, sir; I refrain from h-andling money.I think it is better that one person should do it, and be responsible.
By Mir. Co~LFAX:
Q. Do you know where MIr. Cheney is now? —A. He has charge ofAthe
special railway mail-service of the New England States, with his headquarters at Boston.
Q. You never heard from himn that he paid me any money?-A. No,
sir; the subject was never called to my attention until recently.
By Mr. IcCnRARY:
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 br OGakes 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.
B.y 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,
way. It is a common thing for parties drawing a check to pay for a,
draft to write in something to indicate the purpose for which it isdrawn.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       311
WVASHINGTON, Jrcnuat'ry 22, 1873.
JOHN1 B. ALLEY recalled and examined.
By MIr. COLFAX:
Question. You 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 nade on thle 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 statesment I made''irn conversation accorded substantially with his? —A. I unlderstood there was no substantial disagreement. I am not quite celtain now whether it was before or immediately
after you imade your statement here. I supposed he had conferred with
you. I had never had any conference with you upon the matter.
Q. MJr. Ames testifies that he had some conversation with me early
in the session, and that he mlade some statement before this committee
based upon this conversation.  He told you that the statement made
to him accorded substantially with his recollection 3?-A. That is mIly
impression. I do not know particularly atbout it.
By the CIHAIR MAN:
Q. That was before the recess?-A. It mulst have been, because there
certainly was a disagreement afterward. I did not regard it, and I. did
not suppose lie regarded it, however, as any substantial disagreement
even after the recess.
Q. There appears to be a substantial disa.greement nows  -A. Yes;
quite different fronm what I supposed.
Q. Did Mr. Ames on that occasion go on to maike his statement to
you of the facts in relation to his dealings with MAir. Colfax? Did he
undertake to narrate how the thing was 3 —A. No, sir.
Q. He merely said that he had had a conference with Mr. Colfax, and
that they substantially agreedl -A. Yes, sir. It must have been previous 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. MERRICiK:
Q. Did Mr. Ames, when speaking of the substantial agreement between himself and Mr. Colfax, refer to' any sfpecial statement in which
there was this coincidence, so that you could identify the special correspondence he referred to?-A. I do not think he did. He was talking
with the counsel and myself, speaking of the gentlemen who were ilmplicated, and I remember his makingl that remark.  Mr. Ames has told
me since tl-hat when he went home and refreshed his recollection by -his
memoranda-books, &ec., he found some things a little different friom
what he supposed when he ogave 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 umemoranda?-A. I understand so.




312                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
WASHINGTON, D. C., JanuarH 22, 1873.
MIAT"THEwV G. EMaERY sworn and examined.
By Mr. MIERrICIK:
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 MAobilier?-Answer.
Some two or three years since, perhaps two years, he called to see me
to procure my indorsement of a note to enlable him to raise money, as I
undetrstood, to purchase stock of Mir. Ames in the Union Pacific Railroad. 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 indorsed notes for him two or three tines 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. ILam not
sure of the amounts.
Q. Did you make alny indorsement for any such sum of money in the
year 1i868 — A. That was prior to the date I iaimed, 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 speculation in railroad stock had turned out. He said " Very well;" that " it
was a very good thing.7'
Q. Did he speak of having received dividends?-A. It is my impression that he did not; I arm not sure; I know lhe 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 discounted 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
A3obilier stock at all -A. Not at t that time.
Q. At any time -- A. Since this investigation has been going on, I
met him, and he asked mne 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 Pacifie Railroad 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 ]oan 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
TV-etropolitan Bank? —A. I presume so.
Q. Did he or not inform you at the timne he negotiated the first loan
that he wainted to purchase of Oakes Ames stock in a company for
building the Union Pacific Railroad? -A. My recollection is that he
said Union Pacifie PRaiilroad stock. At that time I did n1ot know that
there was any other comnpany for the purpose of building that road.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     313
Q. Did h1e 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 le first approached you in reference to this loan of $3,000 — A. I do not know
that he gave any iutimation of what it was for.
Q. Did he mention Oakes Ames's name inl connection with it?-A. He
stated, in connection with one of the loans, that it was to purchase some
railroad stock of Mr. Amles.
Q. Did he say anything about Mr. Ames having made a good investmernt for him  -A. I do not recollect as to that.
Q. Did he say anything to you about beilg able to get more than the
cost of the stock within a short time?-A. TO, sir. I have heard from
him or somebody else-perhaps since this thing has been broachedwithin a year, that lhe 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 1871, 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, fron 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 Mi3obilier stock.
WASHINGTON, D. C., Januarsy 24, 1873.
OAKES AkMYES recalled and examined.
By Mr. KELLEY:
Question. I understand from your testimony daay before yesterday that
you hold as my property ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock f —Answer.
Yes, sir.
Q. Will you be good enough to tell me when that became my property?-A. That became your property when you paid for it. When I
paid you $329 in Jnune, 1868. That is the way I considered it.
Q. About what date was that — A. About the middle of June.
Q. Have there been any dividends declared upon these shares since
June, 1868 -A.'Yes.
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 Railroad stock.
Q. Have you them to my credit? -A. I hold them for you.
Q. Then you cannot tell me what property of mine you have in your
hands?- A. I ca'n state that I have ten shares of Credit Mobilier and
ten of Union Pacific Railroad stock.
Q. At what time did they come into your hands as my property? —A.
The ten shares of Union Pacific Railroad stock came into my hands.
some tirme in February, 1868 —in January or February of that year.
Q. If there are any assets, and if there have been dividends dleclared
since then, in stocks or bonds, please give them to me in their chronological order.-A. I cannot tell you just what they are now. I have not
the record here. There a-re two or three dividends, I think.
Q. Cal) you swear that you hold property for me, and yet cannot tell




314                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
what it isM?-A. I cannot tell you without looking at my memoranda
showing x:hen I received the stock.
Q. State as near as you can from memory, to be corrected from 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. Anythilng else?-A. I think 1 also have some certificates for firstmortgage bonds. The company were not able to get the bonds and exchanged 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, -ir; 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 can-not st-ate to you now what is due
you. I will give you a statemlent.
Q. IHow soon can you furnish that list to the chairman of this conmittee-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?-A. In the first
place, you were to pay me $1,000, and interest from 1st July, 1867, for
the stock.
Q. Did I ever offer to pay you a dollar of money? —A. ~No, you never
offered to pay nme a dollar of money, but I did you. D)o 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 remember 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, neair 14th, where I joinedl you casually that
evening, as you seemed to be waiting for a car; when you rallied me
about having become rich enough to throw away $1,000 for a subscription to the Credit F'oncier?-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 it? — A. I remember having some such
conversation about it. I cannot tell where it was. I know there was
a conversation.
Q. Were not you and I members of the national republican executive
committee, meeting together as such frequently that year? —A. I believe 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 aask is, whether I was seeking for an investment
and whether I suggested  it?-A. I do not know whether you cane to
me or I to you.
Q. Then I want to ask you whether you ever loaned me anly money?
The WITNESS. At what time?
1Mr. KELLEY. At any time preceding this transaction?
A. I think I did.
Q. Did you not loan it to me because I told. you of my extreme enmbarrassment?-A. I do not recollect. I loaned you $500 previous to
this, and you repaid it.,




CREDIT MOBILIER.,                    315
Q. Did you loan mle 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 $700?.-A. I said I let youhave $750.
Q. And $700 e-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. You state that you loaned me $500 previously. Did you subsequently let me have the amount of $1,000 — 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
thotusand-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 ayou deliver me the ten shares of Credit Mobilier
stock which you say are mine?-A. I am ready to deliver it now, and
you can have the dividends. (Witness here laid upon the table a certificate for ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock.)
Mr. IKELLEY. You will please hand that to the chailrman of the committee to be retained by him for my use, and please make me a statement 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 I
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 received 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 wa;it 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 $750.
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 February, 80 per cent., and by the cash dividend of June, leaving 8329 due
you, which I paid you.
Q. You appropriated these two dividends, then, for the payment of
the stock? -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, anlld 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 dividends 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 dividends except that which was applied to the purchase of that Credit




316                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
3Mobilier stock, I will, according to your account, then owe you $750 -
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ames, did you ever hand 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 mentioned as receiving them such cheeks?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there other checks inL 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? —A. I cannot tell you
how many were marked; I think J.. F. Wilson indorsed his check; I
think Jir. 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 youts;
you don't deny getting the $329?
SMr. KELLEY. I am not denying anything now; I am asking you
questions.
Tilhe WITNESS. Wbhat, then, is thie use of disputing about it, if you
don't deny it?
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 cannot remember having received it; to the best of my knowledge and belief 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 Iremember right, Mr.
Kelley, you stated you had borrowed a thousand dollars of Mr. Ames,
and that you still owed him? —Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it your recollection that you received the whole of the $1,000 at
one time?-A. On 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?-A. I
have nlot. 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?-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 mincl at a time so far distant; that if it was between the period at which Mr. Ames had proposed
to carry ten shares of this stock for cme, 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 had any
reference to it. I think that will be found to. be substantially the answer 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 IMr. Ames's mind
on the subject.
Q. You think the amount of imoney you received from Mr. Ames was,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    317
in all, a round thousand dollars?-A. It was a round thousand dollars;
that is what I believe I had from himn, 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.
Mfy recollection is that the amounts received were $700 and $300.
Q. Can you state which amount you received first? —A. Seven hundred dollars first.
The chairman inquired of Mr. Ames whether he desired to further
examine Mr. Kelly.
Mar. 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.
MAr. AMES. You have made it very important for me to ask you further 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 repeatedly, 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 (lid.
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 transaction. You do not recollect any of
these circumstances? 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 embarrassed as I had been when I borrowed it, I was unable to return himn
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?-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?-A. $750, you say; $700, I say.
1r,. AMES. I do not know that this is at all important, but you, asked
ime when there would be more dividends on that stock, and I told you
thfat there had been dividends, but that they were tied up with the
McComb suit.
Re-examination of Mr. AMES.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. Let me ask you a question. in relation to your interrogatories to




318                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
1Mr. 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? —A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Subsequently to that date you say Mr. Kelley came,to you and
made these inquiries?-A. He did; yes, sir.
Q. And more than once, you say?-A. Yes, sir. On one of these
occasions, when he asked me, I told hinl 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 NMobilier 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 think it w"as.
Q. The other paiyments were directly to him in money? —A. I think
so; it may be by check on sonie bank, I do not know what bank; and
I do not know whether on some bank or onethe Sergeant-at-Arms; I
have no recollection.
Q. When he called on you to know if there were re  ore dividends and
stock, did you tell him there were dividends on the Union Pacific Railroad 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 nmust 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.
5Kelley 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 Railroad stock for him?-A. I presumne so; I have no
reason to think he did not.
Q. Did you 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;
the stock dividends were within a few months of that first transaction
when I paid him the $329.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. The payment of the $329 was before the $750? —A. Yes, sir; the
$750 was in September afterward.
WASHIINGTON ID. C., January 24, 1873.
L. L. CnouNsE sworn and examined.
By Mr. COLFAX:
Question. You are acquainted with MIr. Ames?-Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had any conversation with him in reference to the charges




CREDIT MOBILIER..                     319
growing out of thllis investigation?-A. Yes, sir; quite a nunmber of
con versa;tion s.
Q. How many altogether — A. I would not like to state the exact
number, because it is my habit, in "pursuit of information under difficulties," 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?-A. I
remem-ber 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 con versation 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, after your 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 mnade by Ine under oath 1?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 (lay, after the
House re-assembled, on the 6th of JanuarTy v-A. Yes, sir; I am quite
certain as to tlat.
Q. What did Air. Ames say about the matter in regard to my statement_-A_.   We had a, general conversation about your statement, andthere were other matters that entered into the conversation. I called
his attention to the fact that your statement did not entirely agree with
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 were, 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 these 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.Y?
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 thlat with absolute 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 h had had paid me?-A. No sir; lie did not say anything aibout it.
By Ml/r. AMES:
Q. Do you say I said that Mr. Colfax's statement was substantially
correct; did I tell you anything of that sort?- A. I think you did, or
that his statement was probably correct. That is what I understood.
Mr. AxwES. I said nothing of the kind.
The WnITNESS. Then I must say I shall have to withdraw my confidence 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 imy 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 yesterday's paper. They are in direct contradiction to the testimony before
this committee. If that is the character of your f your statements they ought
not to have any atthlority with anybody.-A. There may possibly be
an error there. I have only to say, if you imptugn that dispatch, that
only yesterday you were kind enough to say that nmy 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. Colfax'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 MIr. Ames had said; and
did I not show you that dispatch in the Times a few days afterward 6?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 eveining after my conversation with Mr. Ames.
Q. WVill you present it to the committee I —A. I will read the paragraph 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 negotiations, 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 respects with this statement of Mr. Colfax; but the former, in conversation 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 MHr. Ames to say that he had no memorandum in regard to
these matters, or that he did not have any when he testified?-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 word 6" vouchers."
Q. Memorandum, then?.-A. I am not sure about " memorandum.".
I think the word;" record" 1 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 saidt 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 conveyed the impression upon my mind that he yielded the uncertainties
which were in his mind upon the subject to the positive statement of
Mir. Colfax.
By Mr. BANKS:
Q.'Did Mr. Ames say that he believed lMr. Colfax's statement was
substantially correct as to the facts of the case, or as Mr. Colfax understood 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 testified 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 v?-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? 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 conversation that you thought you had any new evidence upon the subject, or
that you had refreshed your memory in any way. 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 being some discrepancy between you
and Mr. Colfax, you were willing, apparently, to waive your recollection
for his.
iRe-examination of Mr. AmES:
i3r. AMES. I had not any conversation with Mir. Crounse such as he
states. I did not say any such thing as lie says I stated.
By the CHaIRInAN:
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 abaut 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                     CRREDIT MOBILIER.
By MCr. KELLEY:
Q. Do the ten shares of Credit M'fobilier stock, which you have placed'
with the chairman of the committee, subject to my order, bear any proportion 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
Oakes Ames contract, and nothing else.
Q. These shares are entitled to whatever dividends were made on any
stock? —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   econtract, of my stock? —A. It will. r shall take great pleasure ill sending it,.
MIr. 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.
iRe-examination of JOHN B. ALLEY.
By Mr. COLFAX:
Q. Day before yesterday you stated that in a conversation with MlVr,
Ames he said to you that his recollection and mine accorded substantially, but that you thought that was before the time I gave my testimony 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 holidays. 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 til-e
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 tha.t
it could not be reconciled.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. Mr. Ames was speaking to you of a conversation 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 "' ir.,.
Ames stated to me before he went home, I think it was, that your stat-ement was substantially in accordance with his. Upon reflection, I find'that your statement was ma(de 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 difference," but you said that his statement was substantially in accordance
with your recollection now?-A. Yes, sir; that is about what he said..
Re-examination of OAKES AMES.
By Mr. COLFAX:
Q. When I testified the 7th of January, and had closed all my statement, and asked Mr. Ames to cross-examine me, why did not you crossexamine me then in regard to my statement that I had received no dividend.?-A. I did not want to contradict you. ] was in hopes the thing
would never be brought. up again. I did not want to have it appear that
there was asny coTflict between your testimuony and miane if I could
avoid i t.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     323
Q. YoU knew that I had received your $17200 check?-A. I did know
it.
Q. Wvhy did you not at that time expose me?-A. You knew of the
check.
Q. I stated in my examination the 7th of January that "a few weeks
or months after this I heard a rumor that unpleasant controversies existed 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 induce me to buy into a lawsuit; that I had never been, during all my
lifei, a plaintiff or a defendant in a court of justice."
W~hat do you say in regard to that statement?-A. I do not knowv
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 unpleasant differences existing among the larger stockholders? —A. I
think it very likely.  That suit of McComnb's was probably what I referred to.
Q. At what time was that suit brought?-A.. I think it was probably
brought in July.
Q. Mr. lMcComnb testifies that it was brought in November. —A. Then
it was in November. I do not know whether Air. IcComb testified
correctly about that or not. My impression is that it was in July. If
it wcas in November, then the conversation must have been after Noverm-.ber. I had no controversy with any one but lTicComb.
Q. Here is what Jir. 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 —M1r. Oakees Ames asked me, one day, if I would like
to purchase some stock in the Credit Miobilier. He said it would prove
a good investment. and he could sell me ten shares of the stock at a
rate somuewhat 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 f'ankly 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 cha'irman, that you agreed, substantially, to iMr. Blaine's statement I-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 the 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 exact copy of your private memorandum-book?-A. I think so.
Q. Do 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.
(. (Referring 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; w hat was the rate of interest? —A. Seven per cent.
d.:From what time?-A..From July 1 1867.




324                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. And I paid you that rate from July, 1867, till March 5?-A. Your
check is dated March 5, I believe.
Q. Will you be kind enough to produce that private memorandumbook? —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. You did not put them all clown 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 I 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 $1,200 check?-A. My statement was not that my recollection accorded with your statement.
Q. You stated then that it accorded with a conversation we had at
Wormley's early in the present session? —A. I do not know as I understand you.
Q. IMr. Alley stated day before yesterday that you told him your recollection 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 WTormley'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 e -
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 — A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of them —A. I do not know whether they are all there or not;
at 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?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 for 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 MOBILIER.                    325
owner of this stock — A. 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 ago that there was some remark made
by me about my giving up these $500 e-A. That you told me at your
room before I testified.
Q. 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 WVormley'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 presume 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. Everybody knew that.
Q. You remember that conversation. — A. It is very likely. I recollect seeing 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. YNow, when I said to you that I was sorry for your misfortunes, 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 thore was nothing to return — A. I do not understand your version of the matter at all. 7'hen you spoke to me about
that matter, you knew 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 remember; in the HEouse 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 where it was that you gave it? —A. No, sir; I
do not.
Re-examination of XMr. COLFAX:
Mr. COLFAX. I wish to repeat exactly what I stated day before yesterday: 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 signed 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. Now, 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 proposed to pay me any of the dividends on the stock, although he recognized me as the owner of the stock; because when I said I told him I
would not buy into a lawsuit, it mast have occurred in the session of
1868, and which, as I have shown the committee, Mr. Blaine testifies to




326                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
M:Ir. Ames telling him the same in the summer of 1868, the co(minittee
will- probably remember that I asked Mr. Ames a question before Mr.
eCCrary asked about Mr. Allison-whether I 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
bonght back. I told him,'No, sir: I will have nothing to do with it7
whatever"
By Mr. AXiS:
Q. You told me that you paid the $534? —A. I stated originally to
the committee that it was about $500, and that you thenl 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-6
justed.
Q. You would not have given me a check for $534.72 unless it completed the purchase of the $2,000 stock?-A. I gave a check for the
amount which Mr. Ames furnished to me.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. MIr. 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
purpose 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 him 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 in.
dollars and cents?-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 unadcljusted; he did not offer.any of them to me.
Q. Did you understand from MRr. Ames that this $534.72 was a balance from you to complete the payment 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 payment 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 supposed I was giving $500, and interest on the purchase, and, as I supposed, interest from the time I made the contract for
the purchase.




CREDIT MOBILlEE.                    327
4Q, This sum, however, you did pay, and you did pay it by a draft on,the Sergeant-at-Arms?-A. I suppose so. I 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 V-A. I am cnnfideut I never received.a check from Mr. Ames, certainly never a check payable to ". (C. or
bearer" for $1,200, or for any other sum. I have no recollection of it;
not the slighest. It is utterly incredible. WVe could not have had that,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 Ames, trustee,.and for Oakes Ames personally, and that this "' S. C." check was a memorandum for himself after I had informed him that the thing was off,,and that I would not buy into a law-suit.
Q. When do you say that conversation occurred? —A. It was in the:summer of 1868.
Q. You 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?-A. Yes; I have endeavored, since 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 sofar 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 habit of always indorsing
every check I drew. If you will examine the checks of the Sergeant-:at-Arms or in the Frst 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 committee 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 Mobilier stock and interest, and give you a stateilent showing the dividends
of 80 per cent. of bonds, which covered the price of your stock in it,
$534.72, showing that balance, and did you not give me a check for that
balance? —A. No, sir; I remember you told mel 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, giving you a balance of $534.72, showing you the amount of your $2,000,Credit MIobilier stock, with interest nup 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 do deny that.
Mr. AMES. I am sorry for it.




328                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
The WITNESS. You gave me a slip of paper with the 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 otlter question.
Re-examination of Mir. AMES.
By Mr. COLFAX:
Q. In the cross-examination of Mr. Amies on the 17th December, in.
response to the question,;" Is he still the owner of that stock V." he replied, " It has never been transferred to him; I do not know whether he
or I own that stock;" what did you mean by that?-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 remenmber 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 andl 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 W7ormley'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, I am going to do that." I left, and I suppose you
thought, from your conversation with Mr. Crounse, that I was going to;
swear to what you testified the other day. You got the impression, fromo
what you saw in the New 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 1 had said about your testimony.
Q. In your testimony given on the 17th December, which was.
submitted to Mr., MlcMurtrie, 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 paid over to
him any dividends;" how could you swear to that, if you knew you
had paid mne $1,2200 dividends? —A. I can swear to it now, having refreshed my memory from my private memorandum-book, and your check
on the Sergeant-at-Arms proves it. I do snot 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 v oucher for it.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     329
WASHINGTON, January 24, 1873.
N. G. 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' 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
ergeant-at-at-Ars; it is a private account between myself and the members 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. I make this req(uest in justice to myself and these depositors.
By Mr. MIcCRARY:
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 members 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 member may ascertain at any moment just how his account stands.
Q. Now turn to Oakes Ames's account on this book.-A. I have it
here, commencing March, 1867, and going on to March 5, 1869. (Witness 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 with you of $10,000. Do you 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. Now, 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
Iblotterof all his transactions. Up to that time I had no paying-teller
n my office; I had simply a book-keeper, messenger, and page.




330                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. As far back as the summer of 1868, was there any entry of these
transations except in 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
X am now pointing to relate?-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?-A. I wish to say that about two weeks ago lMr. Ames came to
my office, and asked me, if I kept my 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 files, and I found this bundle of vouchers. He exallinied 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:; IWASHINGTON, Jiune 23, 1868.,6 SERGOEANT-AT-ARMs, U.. House of Representatives: 
" 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 your office? —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
voiuchers myself, except in an exceptional case.
By A3. McCrARY:
Q. Is it your practice that sometimes a member of Congress sends in
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 subject. 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
committees and other duty, leaving other office-work to the book-keeper
atd paying-teller. Mr. Dillon and Mr. Cheney are both here, and will
be glad to explain these transactions so far as they are disclosed by
the books.
By Mr. KELLEY:
Q. Is that the only check drawn to "; W. D. K? "-A. I think that is
the only one.
By Mlr. IMCCORARY:
Q. I want you, in this connection, to state again whether it would
be a common practice for a check to be made payabre 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? —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




C REDIT wMmO~IPL1iE.                 331
inember to another, coling directly from the hall, and payable to bearer
to be paid to the party who drew the check; the letters, or whatever is
written in, being intended simply to indicate to the person drawing the
check the purpose for which he intended to appropriate the money.
Q. (Mr. NIBLACKI to -Mr. Amnes.) Was there any particular reason in
your mind why you should put inll 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 some nothing is written in. I drew them
in all ways. If I had considered it a bribe, of course I would not have
ptat in either the name or the initials.
Q. (By Mr. MCCRARY.) Did you draw up the cheeks the same day nB
paying out that dividend?-A. (1Mr. Ames.) No, sir.
W~ASHINGTON, January 24, 1873.
TEHomVAS P. CHIENEY sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. State your residence.-Answer. Ashland, New HIlampshire.
Q. Were you employed in the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, House
of Representatives, in 1868. —A. I was, as messenger.
Q. Had you anything to do with paying out money in that office to
nembers-A. That was a part of my duty.
Q. Was it your exclusive duty, or did others pay out money to members?-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. No, 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 in
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 th is
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, 18687 with a check payable to  W. D. K., $329, and a check has
been produced for $329, signed by lMr. 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 10th 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 in 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 know
nothing about it.




332                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
WASHINGTON, Janutary 24, 1873.
MOSES DILLON sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. In 1868 were you employed in the office of the Sergeant-atArms, House of Representatives, and in what capacity? —Answer. Yes.
sir; as cashier and book-keeper.
Q. You remain there in the same capacity still — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this book kept by you — A. Yes, sir; every entry is in my
handwriting.
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, 186S, by
check on the Bank of Comumerce, Boston. —A. Yes sir; that is in my
handwriting.
Q. Do you recollect anything about that transaction?-A. No, sir;
there were a large number of transactions of that sort almost every day;
I do not recollect that particular one.
Q. Can you state from what book this entry was taken?-A. It was
posted from the journal.
Q. Is that journal in your office now?-A. I haave it here.
Q. Mr. Cheney has stated that he ordinarily paid out money to members; that you also made such payments: but he says that from the 10th
June until some day in July he was away. Were all the payments made
during that time by you — A. Not all of them; George Ordway sometimes would make payments.
Q. In this account of MIr. Ames, under date of June 24, there is a
charge to W. D.K. of $329; 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. II
have no recollection at all of the transaction.
Q. WTould you learn from the books to whom it was paid?-A. No,
sir; not at all.
Q. You have no doubt it was paid, 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 ill 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 check. It indicates that that amount was paid on
Oakes Ames's check to somebody; who that was, or what was the purpose 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 miileage 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 net be another entry as a cash account? —A. No, sir;
only this.
Q. So that if Ir. 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. KELLEY:
Q. If 3Mr. 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.                    333
By Mr. MCCPRArY:
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 3'r. McCuARY:
Q. State if it wa-s a custom for members frequently to draw checks 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 indorsement, 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, in 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 d?-A. In the same way.
Q. These entries are both in your handwriting. Have you any recollection of the transactions?-A. I have not.
Q. And the entry gives no information as to whom the checks were
paid?-A. TNo, sir.
By Mr. ORDwAY:
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 office of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, and entered upon these books, except in this open
way?-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 day. 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. INo, 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. Itmight
at the time; I don't know.
Q. Is it usual to give checks in this way with initials written in?-'A.
Some members come in and get-the money themselves, and frequently
put some marks upon them to identify the checks to refresh their memory 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.)
Do you remember, in looking over this book, any other checks from
MINr. 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 MOBILIER.
yesterday,  given by Mr. Ames to  Jr. Allison; hayea you seen that
check? —A. I presume so.
Q. Do you remember whether that is payable to W. B. A. or bearer ".?A. I think it is W~. B.Allison. I think lthe 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 JIr. AxES 
Q. You will see that these checks are written, somln payable to ordles,
some without names, and some with initials. These books are correct? —
A. I presume so.
Q. Do you make youre 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 810,000 on deposit from MIr. Ames the day of this
entry for that amount?- A. I received the, deposit of e10,000, and thet
checks show how it was drawn out.
By Mr. COLF AX:
Q. Have you ever figured to see whetlher that entire atnount 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 to his credit.-A. Yes, I find here the check of Oakes.
Ames, $600, to his credit.
Q. Now turn to the account of MIr. Colf'ax, and see if the check of'
$534.72 is charged to me.-A. Yes, sir; it is charged to you and markedI
"' draft."  There is nothing credited to you, except your mileage andl
salary; no special item.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. You have no recollection whether this check of MTfr. Colfax, Mlarch,
5, 1868, which is marked;"draft," was obtained for himself' or MrI
Ames? -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 Treasury; we do now.
By Mr. NIBLACK:
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 crediteed
except his mileage and salary.
WASHINGTON, D. (  Januarey 29, 1.873
OAKiES AIJES recalled and examined.
By the CHEAIRMAN:
Question. Upon the books of the Sergeant-at-Arms produced yester —
day, in the list of checks charged to you there was one of $329, to Johi'
A. Logan. The committee desire to ask you what that was for.Answer. That seems to be a -fashionable amount about these days




CREDI'r MOBILIE.                       335
although, according to the testimony yesterday, a cheek does not prove.
anythin g.
Q. Will you. state what the transaction was between you and Mr.
Logan, out of which that check grew? —A. Yes. Mr. Logan agreed to
take ten shares of Credit 3iobilier stock. I made up a statement to himla
showing a balance of $329 due him, and gave him a check for it. Awhilea
after that he paid lne back the money and interest. I should prefer that
youn 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 my statement.
Q. At what time was the arrangement made between you and Air
Logan for this purchase? —A. I think in December, 1867.
Q. He paid you nothing? —A. No, sir; not originally. He paid nrie
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 amoun.t 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 upoul it fromu
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 you? —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. Mly iemory is so defective as to dates that I should prefer that you would call
Gefieral Logan.
Q. You think it was within a few months?V-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 8329, it was understood that the ten shares.
of stock remained yours?-A. Yes; I never paid him anything but the
8329.
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$329.
Q. That has not affected him until now?V-A. Not that I know of.
Q. That is all there is of this transaction with Ar. Logan?-A. That
is all.
By Mr. ~MERRICK:
Q. What first brought you to Mr. Logan, or him to you, in connectionr
-with this transaction V-A. I think they caime 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 st-ock I was assigned two lhundied a.nd fifty shares to enable me




336                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
to fulfill engagments I had previously made.  I found 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,  MIr. Painter had the promise of Dr. Durant that I should
give him $5,000, and I only gave him $3,000.  MIr. McComb wanted
that I'hould give Senator Bayard $5,000, and I could not give him
anything. M ir. Allison wanted more than he got; and so all through
the list.
Q. REight 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 members in consequence of conversations you had had with them prior to
that session of Congress which commenced December, 1867.-A. I 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 Railroad and Credit M3obilier from the time I took
an interest in it myself; I went so far as in a considerable number of
instances to guarantee the 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.
looper, 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 engagements 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 on
the subject — A. My answer to that is simply this: I did not know before October that I could get any stock; 1 had talked with a great many
parties, 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 M'r.
Colfax in reference to his taking any of that stock prior to the session
which commenced in 1867? —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 excursion 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 Railroad Company? —A. I do not know anything about it. I
did not become interested in the Credit iMlobilier until August, 1865.
Q. You remember no such thing — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember whether you had any conversation prior to December, 1867, with Mr. Bingham, of Ohio ~ —A. I think I did,. I think
I talked with him about it the spring before.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       337
Q. You think you had with Mr. Scofield; how was it with. M:r. Garfield?-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 reference to this transaction between you and Senator Patterson. WVill you
be good enough to produce them?-A. Senator Patterson testified that
he never received 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 paper referred to wvas placed inll evidence, and is as follows:)
"; VASIIINGTON, June 22, 1868..
";Received of Oakes Ames $1,800, on account of dividend received
by him as trustee on stock held fbr my account.
"J. W. PATTERSON."
Q. Did you see him sign this paper? —A. Yes. He gave it to me at
-the time. I wrote the receipt and lie signed it. The receipt is in lmy
writing, and the signature is his.
Q. And made at the time of the date?-A. Yes, sir. I also hand to
the committee another paper.
(Paper placed in evidence as follows:)
"o BOsTroN, Micay 6, 1871.
":Received of' Oakes Amnes, two hundred' shares Union Pacific lRailToad stock, seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars and twenty-four cents
in cash, on account of Credit -Mobilier stock, and there are still due on
the transaction thirty slares of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America,
and two thousalnd in the incolme-bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad.
"J. W. PATTERSOXN."
Q. Was that signed by him in your presence and given to y6L? —A.
Yes.
Q. And alt the date it bears?-A.. I presumen so.
Q. The paper itself is in your own ha.ndwriting ~-A. Yes, sir.
Q. This was the paper given at the time of the settlement nmade between you and him, of which you spoke in 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 at 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 Mir. Patterson.
Q. You received it throulghi the mail 3-A. I do not recollect how I received 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 commenced.
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 hinm in reference to this letter?-A. I have had several interviews with him since the letter was
written.
Q. In reference to the letter?-A. Not in reference to the letter, but
in referenee to matters the letter alludes to.
Q. In any of the conversations Sou have had with him, has the fact
22 x




338                     CRIEDIT aMOBILIER.
that he had written such a letter been inentioned? A.. I (do not know
that it has. I do not know whether it has or not. I t:hilnk 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
I 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, tlhe 7th
or 8th of January.
(The letter referred to was placed in evidence, and is as follows:)
" WASINITCTO~N D. C., January 4, 1873.
M J~ Di EAt' SIr: The faots in respect to the Credit Mobilier, so far as
I hald 1any connection with it, were as follows:
"YCou came to ine orne day, knowinog that a want of means was a
chronic evil with me, and said,' Pattersol, if you would like, I can let
you. have thirty shares of stock in the -Credit Mobilier, whichl 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 lhad not the money at that timle, and must
defer it until I could get it.
"Your reply wnas that you, presulmed I could have it la-ter, when it
Imight be convenient, and you regarded it a perfectly legitimate transaction. 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 (id except when it was forced upon you by the Secretary.
"After this consersation with me, you may have had the impression
that I should take the stock some time, but for some reason or other,
perhaps fbr a want, of flunds, I never took any of the stock.  If I never
had aEny stock in the company, I could not, as I did not have, its dividends.
" If pressed to know if I purchased at any timne any bonds or stock of
the road, you canr say I did at the time they attempted to embarrass you
when the vxalue of the stock was depressed, aind I paid you the full
market value bor it. I paid you $7,000 in money for stock and bonds.
"4 The stock I put i;nto the hands of Mr. M:[orton immediately to sel as
soon as it should go up reasonably in the market, which he did.
"I saw liMr. MIort-on on my way through, and he said he had ilever
held any stock in the Credit MIobilier for any one, but did not wish to
have his naime brought into the examination if it could be avoided. I
am going to Ohio. i will see you on my return. Don't fail to correct
your origi.zal state.z)ent beyin)re the committee.;It must not be rep:orted as it
new Stdaftlas.
Very truly,
"J. W. PATTERSON.' lo01n. OAriES AmtiES."
By the C}IAI-rlAmANlg:
Q. Somrte days ago I gave you notice in writing to produce all the
memnioranduim-books and papers that- you had containing any entries
relatin g to the dealings between you and these various gentlemen who
have been named and have been examined here. Y ou have produced
what purports to be copies of sonie of these entries. Have you the
original nemorandum-books fr'om which you made these copies? —A.
STo, sir; I have not. 




CREDIT AMOBILIER.                     339
Q. Where are they? —A. I suppose at Easton.
Q. The committee think these original memorandrum-books must be
produced.-A. Very well, sir; I will send for them.
Q. The committee desire that all the original papers and correspondence regarding this subject, in your possession, shall be produced.-A.
I do not think I have any correspondence in relation to it.
By Mfr. if:ERmrIc:c
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 IMr. Logan before was that Mir. Blaine stated that this
committee had nothing to do with Senators. You -asked for any other
member of the House. There was nlo other member of the House.
I only allude to such names outside of the House as IMr. McComb
and others had mentioned, such as were included in his litigation.
General Logan is the only name in the Senrate that has not been mentioned before, and there is now no other in either branch of Congress.
Q. INeither at that time nor any other time? —Ai..ANo other.
By M2r. McCRAry:
Q. Did General Logan give you any reason for returning the money
and canceling the contract?-A. I do not remenmber that he did.
Q. Is it not probable that he would lhave given you some reason for
doing so? A. I don't know that; it may be probable. I don't recollect any.
Q. Do yon. kno w whether he spoke of any lawsuit in connection with
it? -A. I co not reimember. I want to say further to the committee
that I have been asked by them several times and by some of these parties why I held this stock and did not give it to them. The Credit AIobilier stock was not entitled to any dividends. The stockholders in
that company who signed the stipulation makding 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 havirng signed that stipulation could not draw dividends, and that was probably the reason why
I retained the stock. It would not have been of any use to them, for
they could not have drawn the dividends.
By MiP[r. MiE mItIcX:
Q. You drew them in behalf of- the parties, you having signed the
stipulation of the Oakes Ames contract'?-A. Yes; that was an after
consideration, however.
By iMr. 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 responsible, and that, therefore, you retained their stock in your possession? —A. Yes, sir; I held on to it.
Q. You were trustee. then, for these persons?-A. 3Myattorneyin Boston said I was not trustee in any sense. I took this stock originally in
mLy own name, and I put it in my name as trustee to distinguish it from
my original stock. Itwas not the vote of the company at all that I
should hold it as trustee. It was a wlhim  of mine after I took it.




340                     CIEEDIT MOBILIER.
By LMr. BANKS:
Q. In answer to the question of the chairman as to whether you applied 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 Railroad 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 whoml 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
to you f-A. Most of them had spoken to me. I do not remember speaking to any of them first on the subject; still it may have been the fact,
as they say.
By Mr. McCUARnY:
Q. When the stock was below par you were trying to get people to
take it, and you spoke to thetn generally, but after it got to be very valuable they spoke to you.-A-. Yes, sir; there was a chalnge of position
in that regard.
By M1r. NIBLACIK:
Q. This was a transactioo l which see:ned not to be very generally public. 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. WT hen
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 sone now if you. want; when anything
becomes va~luable 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. None 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; may object in
getting the stock, and the reason I gave for it, was to enable persons
with whom I had previous contracts to get it; that is, I had -told them
I would try and get it for them if I could.
Q. It would 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 disposed of to anybody than par and interest, from the preceding JulyfA. No, sir; I served every man alike, in Congress and out.
Q. There was no distinction between men who -wvere in Congress alld




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      341
those who were out, in the price they had to pay for it?-A. None at
all.
Q. No part of this stock, which was assi'gned to yon to enable you to
faulfill contracts or eugagements, received al:ny greater price than par and
interest? —A. No, sir; no part of it.
~WTASHINGTON, D. C,, Jcanuary 28, 1873.
HENRY C. SWAIN sworn and examined.
By the CIAxmIRAN:
Question. Are you the cashier of the First National Bank of Washington?-Answer. I am.
Q. How long have yoTu been cashier'?- A. Since last April; since the
death of Mr. Huntington.
Q. How longl' have you been connected with the bank in any caacity?-A. Since May,, 1869.
Q. You were not in the bank in 1868?-A. I was not.
Q. - Eave 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 1868 f-A. I think he did
keep au account at the bank in 1868.
Q. Have you broulght the books of the bank which show his account
ill 1868?-A. I have the books; yes, sir.
Q. Will you produce them, and turn to the account of 2Mr. Colfax for
the month of Juae, 18681'.-A. I would like to answer any question you
may ask by referring to the books.
Q. WTill you state from the ledger which is open before you, whether
it appe-ars that Mr. Colfhx made a deposit on the 22d of June, 1868?A. It does.
Q. What is the amouant? —A. By reference to the books I find it was
$1,968.63.
Q. From that entry  you understand that that amount of imoney was
deposited to his credit either by him or by somebody for him'-iA. 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 3Mr. AxEs:
Q. Can you state whethler that deposit oni the 22d June was in money
or checks?-A. It is entered as " cash items."  It [nmay have beenmoney;
it rmay have been checks.
By the CAiRAMrTAN:
Q. Your entries on that book do not show whether the amountts 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 the aggregate
of items in the other book.
Q. Will you produce the blotter, or scratcher, or whatever, yon call it,
the book of original entry t
The WITaESS. Referring to N1what dates?




342                     CREDIT MOBILIEER
The CHlAIRMAN. We   llant you to produce all the entries and papers
you have touching the deposits mnade by Mr. Colfax from the muiddle 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 rel'erring 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 in the First National Bank by Schuyler
Colfax, June 22, 1868.: 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.
None.
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 eixpert
in handwriting.
Q. You are somewhat fam-niliax with MItr. Colfax's handwriting?-A.
Yes, sir.
By Mir. A2tES:
Q. You cannot tell vwher.e- that money ctame from, of course — A. No;
I know niothing about it.
WASHiINCT'oON J-nantry'28, 1873.
BELNJAMiHN F. HAN recalled and examined.
By the CHIAIRMAN:
Question. When MIr. Dillon was on the stand he testified in relation to
a loan by him to TMr. Neilson of $5,000 for fifty additional shares of Credit
M3obilier stock; that he could not tell in relerelce 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 positively 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 wtas in the employ 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 M1r. Dillon f —A. IMr. 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 eaclh one, and a clerk w- ho has charge of that particular 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 lkept
any books in reference to any private transactions of his?-A. No, sir.
Q. Are you familiar enoungh with his books to know whethelF le at
that time, in February, 1868, kept aanr boolks of that descriptioi?-A.
I do not think hie did.




CREDIT MO3ILIERn.                     343
Q. Have you made any search amo-ng his books and papers to see
whether anything can be found bearing  upon that $.5,000 transaction eA. There is nothing to be found among the papers in my possession.
Q. Have you any knowledge in relatioll to that 85,000?-A. Nothing
more than I stated in my former testimony.
Q. Any information about it?-A. "No, sir.
By Mr. M[rtE-rICc:>
Q. You were secretary of the Credit Mobilier at that time 9?-A. Yes,
sir; assistant secretary.
Q. You cannot recall to mind anything that occurred in regardl to
this matter, independent of the books?-A. No, sir.
By t}l, CI-xlamuTAN:
Q. Did you issue the certificato of these fifty shares to Neilson'-A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Did yoll know in reference to the loan by Mr. Dillon, that Mr.
Dillon loaned himl the money to pay for it.-A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Wa.s thle money paid to you?. —.A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who paid it to you?-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 since that time, and it has entirely escaped
my lmemlory.
Q. You hlave no recollection about the payment of this money, whether
it was paid by Mr. Dillon, Mr. Neilson, or who paid it?,-A. No, sir.
By Mr. MEiniFuCl:
Q. Have you any recollection apalrt from-  t he entries upon the books
of the transfer of the stock?-A. No, sir; I was not, in the habit of recollecting things. I was in the habit of keeping' my accounts on the'
books in order to refer to them.
By the CHAIRIMAN:
Q. It has been stated that a paper was (Irawn up and signed by several 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 Ames?-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 shonlld be at the head.
By the CxHAIRMIAN:
Q. Do you know in whose handwriting the pencil signature of Mr.
Ames is — A. The signature in pencil, I do iot know who wrote; the
signature of Oliver Ames was first written in pencil, and afterward written 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 first name.
Q. Do you know anything about how this paper was gotten- up, holw
it came to be made, and what was its object or purpose' —A. I do not




344                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
I presume, the object was to sell Mr. Brooks fifty shares on account of
his 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 additional shares?-A. I do not recollect of any discussion. It, was none of
my business to know anything about these things. I was simply a
clerk; although I was styled assistant secretary, my business was
simply to execute the wishes of parties in charge.
Q. Where (lid you find the paper?-A. This paper was in the hands
of one of the attorneys of the company.  
Q. You procured it froml him recently?-A. Since I was here before.
Q. Do you know whether it was ever in your possession before?-7.
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 31r. IMTEnICI:
Q. Having that paper before you and referring to the erasure in theentry 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 thatl 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?-A. It has escaped my
memory entirely. It is not improbable that Mr. Brooks's name was originally written there.
Q. Might that not have been naturally dlone in consequence, of his
name being used on this paper?-A. It might have been done for that,
reason.
By Mir. McC0RARY:
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 NW~  York and some in Boston.
By the CHAIR-rMAN:
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 Oakles Ames. I do not.
consider that genuine.
By MSr. MCCRARY:
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 MOBILIER.                     345
to do so? —A. Yes, sir; I was simply acting in a clerical capacit'y and
the reasonis were not given to me.
Q. I lunderstad you to repeat that you know nothing of the repay-.
ment of this money by Mr. ZNeilson 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 Mir. Dillon to see if you could
find anything about the repayment of that loaln by Mr. Neilson?-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 memorandunm 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. Wouldl Mr. Dillon be able to state where the account would appear?-A. I doubt if MIr. Dillon would know.
Q. Was he in the habit of making loans of $5,00  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 vith Mr.
Alley or any other member of a railroad company.
By Mr. BANKS:
Q. Do you have charge of lMr. Dillons private affairs 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?f-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
G. NM. Dodge, chief engineer of the Union Pacific RPailroad Company,
and also to the sale to Hon. Jamles Brooks of the balance he is entitled
to under his agreemerit'with T. C. Durant, the said Brooks to pay par
value for the same.
OLIVER AMES.
[Pencil:] OAIEAS   AMSiES.
(Not his, I believe.)
JOHIN b. DUFF.
S. HOOPER & CO.
W. T. GLIDDETN.
E. H.H. BAKEPR.
F. NICKERSOCN.
JOS. NICKERSON.
R. E. ROBBINS.
THO. NICKERSON.
ISAAC THACKER.
HORATIO GILBERT.
HORATIO J. GILBERT.
T. WV, ANDREWS.
S. H. FESSENDEN.
GAML. BRADFORD.
E. WV. GILMORE.
O. S. CHAPMAN.
G. G. GRAY,
Per H. W. GRAY, Attorney.




346                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
WASEIINGTON,  D. C., January 28; 1873.
JOHN A. LOGAN, United States Senator from the State of Illinois,
sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. Have you seen the testimony of Mr. Oakes Ames inwhich
your name is mentioned in connection with the purchase of Credit M3obilier stock?-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 Imy statement: I have
nothilg 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 1867-'68, during the session of Congress. Mr. Ames, in a conversation with me, recommended this stock as valuable, and I agreed
with him to purchase ten shares of it at par. I paid nothing to Mfr.
Ames at any time. He delivered to me no stock and no certificate of,stock.
-In June, 1868, following, on the 20th clay, 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 stocl.  IHe made up a statement, and handed it to me, which
showed that the- dividends on the stock had paid for the purchase of
$.1,~000, and that there was an amount coming to me, in excess, of 8329.
He handed me a check for the $329. I had paid Mr. Ames, as I say,y
no money, and he had delivered no certificate of stock to me, or to anybody else for me. I took the check, and said to {Mr. Ames I would take
it with the understanding that if I 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
Sergeaint-at-Arms, or some one who was in his office, and received the
money on it, $329.  I retained the money a few days. In the mean
time I had received from a friend, with whom I was in communication,
some letters which caused me to doubt whether it was good stock, or
whether there would not be difficulty about it, and I said to MIr. Ames
I believed I would not take the stock. Mar. 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. MIr. Ames hesitated about taking the small anmount 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 examined my memorandum in regard to the transaction, and am able to
give the date, which I could' not do from memorv. I received the check
on the 20th June, and returned the money to MIr. Ames on the 10th July
ibollowing.
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. Duriing 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 commnittee. And T wish to state further, inasmuch
as thie country is alarmed or excited about this matter, that 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 mlat:ter was concerned. I




CIELI'T  OBILIER.                      347
did not think of such'a thing, and I had no suspicion that Ir. Ames
thought of anything of the kind. There was no legislation before Congress at the time in connection with the Union Pacific ltailroad, 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. I only say that so far as influence was concerned, in reference to the
Union Pacific PRailroad, it was entirely unnecessary fbr IMr. Ames or
anybody else, if they had a desire, to have Inade any bargain with me
out of which I could make profit to obtain my influence for that road.
My constituency were imlmediately interested in its being constructed;
I was entirely friendly to it, and have always aided aind 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 aalways voted for it. I want
now to ask Mr. Ames if any legislation, or proposet legislation, was
pending during the period of which I have Sl'oken? 
MIr. AKIES. I do not recollect anything.
By the ChrAIRrIAN:
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 subject?-A. I do not remember the first
conversation, because I' kept ino memorandu m of it. I stated at the
beginning the time I agreed to take this stock. I might have lhad frequent conversations with IMr. Almes prior to that agreement. I remember one canversation in reference to the stock in which he spoke of it
as bein' 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 ca1 nnot 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.  1 then told him I would take ten shares of stock.
Q. Do you remember whether iMr. Ames had ever proposed to you to
become a shareholder in the companyp rior to that session of Congress?A. No, sir; I lever hadc alay conversation with himL  upon the suitject
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 statement of the dividends and amount due you f —A. Yes, sir.
Q. There had been a bond dividendA 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 le accounted for the
dividends, and stated that there was $329 due to mle 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
you 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 transaction and returned him the money?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I do not know whether it is very i1nuportant for the committee to
know the reasons that influenced you, but I would inquire whether it
was some question in relation to the value of the stock that influenced
you not to take it, or other consider"ations?-A. I had, as I said, my
ideas in reference to the organization and mnatters in regard to the contract for building the road firom the comrlmunications I liadl received friom




348                     CREDIT MIOBILIETR.
that friend who was entirely outsile of this muatter. it was from. a contractor on the road. He had been writillng to me, and had stated a good
deal about the imatter of these contracts, and the statements he made
suggested to my mind that there might possibly be trouble ahead. 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 committed
had sent for me.
Q. Did IMr. 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. e-Ie 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. I think lie merely made general representatiQns.
By Mr. NIBLACIK:
(. At that session of Congress I believe youn 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 yours? —A. It may
po.ssibly 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 Ime the suggestion that led me to reflect upon the' subject, 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 legislation in connection with the road. I saw nothing in the transaction
onil the part of Mir. Ames'that showed anything more tlhan a mere basin.ess natter.
By the CI-IAItIAN:
Q. Do you, reimember whether in the conversations you had with Mir.
Ames about it there was anything said as to there being any likellihood
of the matter comingo before Congress in any shape or form?.-A. I do
not remember that there, was. I looked upon it simply as a transaction
between him and myself as business men. HTe and IC were good friends.
He said to me that be was seeking  prominent infltentital men in the
country to invest in this stock. I mention th-tt as a part of the conversation, because I desire to state e6verything.
By Mr. MIERRICKI:
Q. W~ere you or not advised of a1 resolution introduced by C. C. Was1hburn, 4th 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 tinme you wiere Inmaking this contract
with MHr. Amtes ~?-A. It had no reference to it. I had had conversations with Mr. Ames long, prior to that. This was the time I told him
I would purchase.
Q. Suppose your attention hcad been called on the 10th of February,
when you made your contract with him, to the fict thait C. (. Washburn, on the 4th of February, had introduced a resolutionl inquiring as
to whether these roads had complied witl their obligations under the
law? —A. I would have made the purchatse just the sanme, because I did
not look Cat it in any improper light.
Q. WiTould the fact of y5our beinlg a, member of the Pacific Railroad
Co-nmittee, aind, this resolution being introduced the 4th ofr February,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       349
to inquire into the manner in which these roads haad complied with their
obligations, have been a sufficient inducement to have withheld you
from  the investiment? -A. It might have been if I had thought anything about it. I had nothing in my mind at that time in reference to
any such matter. In fact, I presumle MAr. Amnes profiered me the stock
about which we had had prior conversations, and I said I was willing
tQ macke the purchase.
By the CHATrMAN:
Q. You had learned from ~Mr. Ames that there was some collnection
between the Credit Mlobilier and the -Union Pacific Rkailroad? -A. I
had learned this-and I dislike to confess my ignorance in the matterI had learned that it was the stock of a company which was constructing the Union Ptacific Railroad, but the details of the relations between
themi I did not know anything about, and really do not now thoroughly,
for I have never investigated it.
[To ]Mr. Ames: Q. I wish to ask AMr. Ames whetller the statement I
have made accords with his recollection of the facts?-A. Substantiqally.]
Thie witness subsequently returned to the committee-room1 and said:
Iln my testimony this morning a statemenlt was maide wh-ich I desire
to be corrected. In answer to the question of M1r. zNiblack -whether I
-was not a nmember of the Pacific RItailroad Committee at the time7 I re —
plied that I did not know,  perhaps I was. I ewent immediately and exaiuined the Journ(l, and find that I was not a, member of that committee at that time. I was not a member of' the Pacific Railroad Committee lduring the 40th Congress. In. 1869, in the 41st Congress, the Sournal states the co mmittee as follows: William A. VWheeler, chairman;
John A. Logan; and so on. This was nearly a year after the tlransaction occurred. 1 was ntot appointed a member of that committee until
March, 1869.`WkASHIINGTON, D. C., Januaryz, 29, 1873.
SIDNEY DILLON recalled and examined.
By the CIIAIRMAN:
Question. You stated the other day that you loaned $5,000 to Mr. Neilsou
to pay the fifty shares Credit M3obilier stock, an'd that you thought the
money had been repaid to you, but was not clear by whom; your information then was that Mr. Ham was the mlan who had charge of
the transaction, and could tell us. IMr. 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 befobre the committee on a former occasion, for the purpose of ascertaininng 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 makle, 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 coI1tracts going on at the same time, one il New Hampshire and one in
Massachusetts, and so on. I had an office in each place, where nmy
business was done for that separate contract. - I had no general office
in New Yorkl 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 employe d Mr. Hamin to do




350                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
my business. Before tlen, if a party came to me and wvantedl to borrow
$5,000, or I wanted to borrow $5,000, or if I was in any trade ill stock
or bonds, it had been my custom to attend to the business nmyself, 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 memorandcum; I kept them all in
Imy head. Such a matter as this wvith 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 klnowledge on. the subject.   ea cnnot find the stock or bonds, and I think Mr. Neilson must have paid
me. I may have sold the securities for his account, as they were about
the sffiame 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 c:an tell you nothing further
about it.
Q. You remember making the loan to Mr. Neilson —yo    n relmemrber
that transaction as being' with Mr. NTeilson and not with Mr. Brooks? —A.
It was with Itr.:Neilson.
Q. Do you rememlber whether lie cgave you any note or obligation, or
whether you made an35' memuorandc1um of it?-A. I took no note and
made no nemorandumn. I took collaterals from him.
Q. Would you be likely to loan the amount of 5,0)00 without lhaving
a note? —A. 0, yes, I often do it; it is customary in New York. A man
comes in, and wants five, ten, or twenty thousand dollcars; " Here is my
momley: there a.re the collaterals; keep the collaterals until the mloney is
paid."  That was about the way of it when M:r. TNeilson borrowed this
money. He handed me his collaterals and I gave, him the money. I
think that is the fact; I am.m not sure. An(d he must have returned me
the money and thaken his collaterals witliout taking ul the receipt.
Q. The receipt you gave for collaterals would state the Ramount of
collaterals? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. You remember loaning the money; do you retnember whether youl
(lid 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 Placific ]Lailroad stock and bonds; none but  Pacific lRailroad
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, anad are not able to find any such securities
belongingi to Neilson in your possession now?-A. I have searched my
entire papers, and had iMr. 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
speaBiug  of, for me.
Q. But the fitct as to whether you have retained or surrendered these
securities is entirely out of your memory f —A. I cannot rememberr;,
I do niot remember the transaction.
Q. Then you have no personal recollection of this tr.ansaction 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 whomn the money was repaid, if it wvas repaid — A. I am unable to say anything except that it
would be natural that I should receive the money friom the person who.
borrowed it. I cannot tell you as to the fact.




CREDIT MOBILIEr.                       351
Q. Do you know anything in regard -to the paper being gottell up and
signed for the consent of the stockholders to Mr. ZNeilson's receiving
the additional shares? You stated the other day that it referred only
to this transaction of Neilson's.-A. I llad forgottoll that it referrecd
to any other. I had not seen the paper for a long time.
Q. Can you state why the name of Mr. Brooks was put into thlat paper instead of Neilson's?-A. I can only sta,te that as Mir Brooks's namne
had been identified with the transaction in the forim in which it has been
represented here, his name appeared by mlistake in the paper instead of
that of' eilson's. That is my impression now. I cannot state certainly.
Q. Can you state whether or not Mr. Brooks is the party who negotiated with you, or claimed that the thiing should be done? —A. I think
in my testimony I stated that Mr. Brooks talked with men about that.
Q. And that it was done ulon his application and not upon the application of Neilson - -A. I think Mir. Brooks said the transaction was so
and so, as has been represented here, and that, on considerations of my
own motion, I got up that paper to have Neilson get the fifty shares.
Q. Then I understand that it was upon the application of IAr. Br-ooks
and not upon the application of Mr. Neilson ttlhat that transaction occurredl?-A. I think it was brought to nime in the first iinstance  by MIr.
Brooks.
WASHIING-TON, D. C. Jctnzzuac, 29, 1873.
Robert S. Hale, esq., appeared before the committee in behalf of Mr.
Colfax, and  stated that it was the desire of I1r. Colfax to bring witnesses and adduce proof to rebut the testimony before the committee in.
regarld to his connection with the Credit M]obilier. He wished now to
recall a witniess for the purpose of asking hinm a single question.
Permission having been granted by the committee, Henry C. Swain
was recalled and examined by i Mr. Hale.
Question. Will you state whether the books of thle First. National Bank,
show debits to Mr. Colhax on the day of the credits of which you spoke
in your testimlony yesterday-the 22d June, 1868?-Answer.'They do.
Q. What are those debits? — A. I celnnot state fully. Among theli
was a check of 81,000, paid on that day.
Q. Have you that check?-A. I have it here.
Q. Will you produce it — A.  ThIis is the check referred to. It reads:
"- WASHIINGTON, ID. C., Jutne 22 1868.
L" First; National Bank, pay to self or'bearer $1,000.
"SCHUYLEI COLFAX.77
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 Mri. Colfax.
Q. Have you that draft? — A. I have.
Q. Produce it.-A. It is a draft of our bank on the Continental Tational Bank of New Yorlk for $1,000, drawn to the order of IM~r. Colfax,
and signed by H. S. Flint, assistant cashier. It is indorsed:
"' Pay to the order of A. 1-. Connor, Indianapolis.
*4 SCHUYLER COLFAX.
"A. H. CoNNOR:
"' Pay Winslow Lanier, or order.
" S. A. FLETCHEI & C0."7
Q). It was subsequently paid by the drawee, in Tew York?- A. Yes,
sir.




352                     CREDIT MOBILImER.
Q. Are there any other debits to him  onl 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 fincl any other — A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. AXMES:
Q. Was this deposit of $1,200, and these checks referred to yesterday,
the 22d June, 1868?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. He made the deposit, and then drew out 81,000, and sent it, in a
draft, to New York?-A. We gave him a check on New York.
WASHINGTON, D. C., JanZary 29, 1873.
11c-examination of OAIES iAMES.
By the CHIAIRTIAN:
Q. Among the checks the Sergeant-at-Arms has laid before the conmmittee dated in the imonth of June, 186S, drawn by you, is one payable
to J. WT. Patterson or ibearer, $1,800, indorsed by iMr. Patterson; did
you give that check to M3r. Patterson?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. For. what wa>s this $1,8'00 paid?-A. It was a dividend of 60 per
eent. on $3,000 of Credit; Iobilier stock.
Q. It was a cash dividend F —A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you. take a receipt froom him l-A. I did.
Q. Have you that receipt? —A. I think you have it.
Q. Have you any other receipt fromn Mr, Patterson that you have not
produced here? —-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wtill. oa produce it? —A. Here it is. It reads: " TVashington, February 14, 1868.  teceived of Oakes Ames $2,328 for three bonds of
Union Pacific  nailroad Compauny sold for me, being a cdividend 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 malde at the time of the date?-A. I presume so; there
would be no object in making it any other date.
Q. What are the fiToures 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
MIr. 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. 3ir. 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 day 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 iMr. Logan, who was subsequently examined. In looking over the drafts, however, there are some which do not indicate in
themselves by whom they were drawn, or for what purpose, and therefore 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-atArms, House of Representatives, pay Oakes Ames."  Then there is a
letter S and somle other filling', "q[$600,] and charge to my account.
Oakes Almes." —A. That was given to Mr. Scofield.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    353
Q. -The letters then are Se.?-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 I 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?. —A. Yes,
sir; my memorandum, which I 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? —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 f?-A. Yes, sir; I paid it over to hilm.
Q. You paid the proceeds of the bond dividend, 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?-f-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 McComb suit was brought, do you thinkl?-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 Railroad stock that he kept as profit.
Q. So that you got back the money and he made ten shares of Union
Pacific Railroad stock? —A. I think so; I don't wish to state positively;
his memory is probably better than mine Iupon 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 lmy ememubrance of it.
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 Sergeant-at-Arms. These initials are your own? —A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know 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
no idea. I may have drawn the imoney.and handed it to another per23 x




35 4                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 i-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.
Q. Is there any other gentleman here in Congress who received
$329 dividend except those who have already been named by you — A.
I don'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 Mlr. Wilson; and the same amount to John A. iLogan,
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 particular form of drawing my checks, -There are quite a number drawn
for other purposes having no reference to the Credit Mobilier.
Q. If you 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 eA. 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 receive it?-A. No, sir.
Q. If you drew out the money for yourself, would you 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 solne of these matters; I cannot 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 doubt, 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 any 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 il! relation to this draft of $722, for what




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    355
it was drawn? —A. None whatever. I may be able to find some memoranda; 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. I think about the same time with the rest
of them.
Q. Have you examined all the checks that you gave the Sergeant-atArms?-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 mnemorandum, 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 you paid him $400, and that you paid it by check
on the Sergeant-at-Arms?, —A. I think I did, judging from this memoranda. 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 tenll 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 ally 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 judgment.
Q. In relation to the dividends, you'say you held the stock and certificates for bonds, and that you have drawn the dividends on these Credit
Mobilier shares which have been transferred? —A. Yes, 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. No,
sir.
Q. You say you received certificates for bonds in payment of dividends; what kind of bonds were they? —A. They were dividend certificates for first-mortgage Union Pacific Railroad bonds, bat the company 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? —
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 —A. I presume so.
Q. If you had delivered the certificates for bonds to these gentlemen, would they have received the bonds — A. No; and these gentlemen could not have drawn dividends at all. The dividends were
not made, as I have before explained, upon the Credit Miobilier 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 themselves receive the dividends.




356                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Suppose the parties declined to take the stock before this last dividend, and you had continued to be the owner of the stock itself, and
had received certificates for the bonds, could you have got the bonds
upon these certificates — A. No, sir. About a year afterward we received what are called income bonds in payment of the certificates.
Q. Have these income bonds drawn any dividend — A. Yes, sir.
The receipts which I have from Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Painter, 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 im? — A. Yes, sir 3 I expect
to pay over to Mir. 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 3Mr. 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 off, as Mr. Colfax
said.
Q. Is it off in consequence of the agreement you had with him; or,
when he sent the certificate of stock back, did you treat that as an abandonment of the transaction -A. I think M[r. 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 presume 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 supposed the thing was canceled, and that that was an end of the transaction.
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 i 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 returned 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 MOBILIER.                    357
Q. And you consider yourself entitled to these?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that Mr. Allison ever returned to you, in any way
any part of the money you paid over to him?-4. 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?-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 dividend — 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 — 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?-A. No; I do not
believe he did.
Q. Have you any doubt upon that subject?-A. Not much. Mr. Allison returned nme his stock, but he has never paid me back any money, as
I understand.
Q. You understand that Mr. IKelley 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?-A. Yes,
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? —A. I do not.
Q. And you do not believe he has paid it? —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. Garfield.-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; sometimes 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 MOBILIER.
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 cannot 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 wastshort.
I made a statement to him, showing the transaction, and what there
was -due on it; that, deducting the bond dividend and the cash dividend, there was $329 due him, for which I had given him a check; that
he had never asked me to 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. Hlow long after that transaction did he go to Europe?-A. I believe 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 repeat 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 I 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, I 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. WTas it in that conversation that he referred to the influence this
matter would have upon the election in his district?-A. I do not recollect 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?-A. My impression 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 MOBILIER.                    359
Paper shown to the committee, containing figures as follows:
" $1, 000
1, 400
2, 400"
Q. You say these figures were made by Mr. Garfield?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do these sums represent e How did he put them down 1A. $1,000 Union Pacific Railroad stock, $1,000 Credit Mobilier stock,
and $400 which he could not remember whether it was to be in cash,
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?-A. IHe
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?-A. I so understood it.
By Mr. MERR.CIn:
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 remember the conversation well enough to repeat it.
Q. You 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 conflict 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 MAr. 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. Peopls ask me about
things that occurred a year ago, and I cannet 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 understand 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 MOBILIER.
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?-A. Yes; I so understood him.
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 subject 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 CHAIRMAN. 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 consider 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
satisfied 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. 0, 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. WVe 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. MERRIcK:
Q. Did you receive it as a bona-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. IKelley'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 MOBILIER.                   361
Q. Is that the way you understood him?-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; I 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 receipt.
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
him 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?-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? —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. MERRICK:
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. McCRARY:
Q. You had an envelope the other day in which, you stated, Mr. Allison 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 still 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, ID. C., January 29, 1873.
JAMES BROOKS, recalled at his own instance, read the following statement:
Mir. Brooks desires to make record of the factThat in. the printed exhibit of the supreme court of Pennsylvania,




362                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
January term, 1868, (No. 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. Neilson 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. Rollins, 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 Railroad 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 thatt 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 meeting, 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. MERRICK:
Question. What was'the duration of your commission, which you
received as Government director — Answer. I was appointed Ist October, 1867, but I was not sworn in until March 23, 1868, and my commission 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?
Mr. MERRICK. Under the Government, from the same authority under 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 connection 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 t?-A. I recollect no commission except that of October, 1867;
I do not see why there should have been another. I may have had notice 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 the
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 October 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 you not recommissioned 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, when 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.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. If I remember your testimony you stated that you had no knowledge in reference to this paper that was gotten up and signed by the
shareholders of the Credit Mobilier authorizing the issuing of these fifty
shares?-A. I never heard of it until since this investigation commenced.
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 paper.
Q. tHdave 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 elicited here. I have not
the least idea, unless from the general conversation in the office, and
the constant talk, in which it may have been stated that Duiant'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 Neilson.
But there is nothing in that, I repeat again. It is demonstrated by this
record of the court of Pennsylvania that Neilsqn at that time had one
hundred shares standing in his namle, and fifty additional shares standing 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. February 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 prior 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 the 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 instead of the one hundred.
Q. Did you not receive as compensation for the additional shares
$25,000 of the Union Pacific Railroad securities.
The WITNESS. What $25,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred shares Union Pacific Railroad stock
and $5,000 bonds?-A. No, sir; Mr. Neilson did-not I.
Q. That was by special agreement?-A. That was by special agreement.
Q. It was not because these securities went with the stoek as belong



364                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
ing to it?-A. Doctor Durant settled the matter in his own way; I remember 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 oin 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 additional 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. Neilson'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 signing 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 e-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 mutist 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.
ft 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.
Neilson says he borrowed from Mr. Dillon to pay for the fifty shares —
A. I never knew anything of the transaction.
Q. Have you 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 my 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 Neilson?-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 inform ation was that on the Monday following an order would be issued Trom
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 any man




CREDIT'MOBILIER.                    365
who had the information I had could very easily have done.  Any
nman 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 memorandumbook 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.
WASRINGTON, January 30, 1873.
THOMIAS C. DURANT, having been recalled at his own instance, made
the following statement:
MIr. John B. Alley prefaced his testimony on the 7th day of January
instant, in his examination before your committee, with what he calls a
"1 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 Pacific Railroad abundantly furnishes.
This company was organized by the election of a board of thirty directors, 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 exhausted, 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, subscribing 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 second 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, therefore became necessary to devise some measure for limiting the liability of




366                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
these parties to the amount they were willing to risk in the enterprise.
For this purpose the Credit Mobilier of America, a Pennsylvania corporation of ample powers, was made use of.  On the 15th day 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 transportation expensive, the only means of communication being by the
tedious and uncertain navigation of the Missouri River, 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 bold the contractors 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 construction of the road, and built two hundred and forty-seven miles.
Without the aid of this company, or some other formed for similar purposes, the railroad could not have been built at that time. Such con-,
struction companies have since been used in all important railway operations.
Mr. Ames, Mr. Alley, and their friends were not original subscribers
in the Union Pacific, their only interest in the said company being acquired by them as contractors or as stockholders in the Credit Mobilier.
At the October election of directors, in 1866, of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and after the completion of the l1oxie 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: 
"Resolved, That the Union Pacific Railroad Company will, and do
hereby, consider the Hoxie contract extended to the point already completed, 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, appearing 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 authorizing the officers of the company to settle with the Credit AMobilier 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 that it was not constructed
under the EHoxie contract, and that a considerable portion of the cost
thereof had been paid by the company before the adoption of said resolution. and that said resolution does not provide any compensation or
advantage to the company by requiring stock subscriptions or stipulations for the construction of additional portions of the company's railroad, or by any other means or stipulations whatsoever, but leaves the
company to sustain a very great and unrequited loss.
"Respectfully, yours,
4THOMAS C. DIUIRANT."
I also obtained an injunction from the New York supreme court, restraining the board of directors from carrying out the said resolution;
whereupon they rescinded it. On the 1st of March, 1867, Mr. J. AM. S.
Williams presented a proposition to build a portion of the road, conmencing 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 RAILROAD COMPANY,
"PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, No. 20 NASSAU STREET,
"New York, SMarch 27, 1867.
"To the directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company:
" GENTLEMEN: I protest 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 company, commencing at the 100th meridian of longitude, for the reason that a section of the road already accepted is included 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 require, 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 that portion of the road completed and accepted by the Government commissioners.
1" I beg to call your attention again to the fact that a pa)rt of this road
has been done for months, and contracts made and mlaterials delivered
for nearly 150 miles of road which the company have paid for, as will
be shown by the books.
" Respectfully,
"T. C. DURANT."
On motion of MIr. McComb, 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. - I filed an amended complaint in the
action, stating "'that I was willing to consent to such a contract as is
proposed only upon the consideration that the same is approved by all
the stockolders of the Union Pacific Railroad Compatny," 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 in 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 officer 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 approved 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,1" in that connection. Since that
day the Credit Mobilier has had nothing to do with the construction of
the Pacific Railway.
Mr. Alley, in his statement, says:'" That Durant, Mc(omb, 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 enormous 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 themselves for loans to the company, or procuring for it such loans, Locomotives 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 appears from the Boomer contract, Gesner, agent, under which the work
was done, of which contract I furnish a copy, marlred D. This contract, mnade 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 General Dix, the president, and John J. Cisco, the treasurer, and other conservative 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 entitled, so that they placed me in a false position.
Mr. Hazard, one of their number, instituted a suit in the courts of
Rhode Island. based upon said accounts. In refutation of these charges,
and to show how outrageous was the account, as stated by them, I introduce affidavits filed in said suit of Sidney Dillon, their president, Mr.
Ham, their assistant treasurer, and Henry C. Crane, of which the following are copies:




CREDIrT MOBILIER                         3G9
" In the supreme court of the State of Rhode Island —in equity.
" Islaac P. 1Hazard vs. thOmas C. Durant et al. Sutits 2~os. I a nd 2.
6"AFFiIDAVIT OF SIDNEY DILLON.
" City and County of New T ork, se:
" Sidney Dillon, being duly sworn, says: That hle was president of the
Credit Mobilier of America, from  lay, 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.
6"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
Railroad Company, and none of them for or on account of the Credit
Mobilier of America,, and that all said items were eharged by the Credit
AMobilier of America to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and were
acknowledged by said railroad company, and allowed in a general set;tlement and adjustment of accounts between said two corporations, and
said Credit Mobilier of America has no ceharge or claim against any
other person theref6r.
"SThat the G esner drafts in said bill of comnplaint mentioned were
never in the accounts of the Credit Mobilier of America, and never belonged there, and that said drafts were paid by the Union Pacifie'Railroad
Company, and, when paid, were charged by the last-named conmpany to
said Gesner, agent.
SIDNEY DILLON.
"61,n the supreme court of lRhode Island —-in equity.
4"Isaac I-. Hazard e-l al. rs. Thomas C..Dutrant et at a. Nos. I and 
" AFFIDAVIT 0' IH-IENSY C, C.R_A.NE.
"ICity a-1nd County of Nw z o orkC ss:
C" Heury C. Crane, being du ly sworn says: Thaqt he was assistant r'ea'surer of the Credit Mobilier of America, froim the t`ime of its establishment in New York until May, 1867, and was well acquainted Nwith the
affairs of the Union 1Pacific Railroad Comnpainy until 1869; that deponent has seen Ia copy of Exhibit.E  attached to the bill in suit No. 2.,
that all the items in said Exhibiti E, tunder date of 1864 werse p ayme'nts
made by the Union Pacitic tailroad Comipany on deimands  against it,
and _sot by.or f or the Credit Mobiiier of Amerie"a and that the lastnamed corporation had not, at any of said dates,  money or means to
any suclfh amlonnts; teat that e book  of the Credit Mobilier o-f America
do not contain. any entry showing that said Thomas C. Durant
received of said.1 corporation aly o-f the sums mentioned in said Exhibit E, and that, in fact, said Thomas C. Durant did not receive the
same, nor any p'trt thereof, that said T. C. Durant hatId no' interest in
the $46,000 mentioned in the bill of complaint in suit No. 2; that deponent received that s-am afs 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 deponent under said author]ty, 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




30O                       CREDIT  MIOBILIER.
at a meeting thereof in Philadelphia, October 20, 1864, at which meeting the s$aid Durant was not present, of which  resolution the following
is a copy:
"  On mot0ion7 the treasurer of the company, or assistant treasurer, be,7
and he is hereby, authorized to pay forty-six thousand dollars to H. C.
Crane, trustee,!New York, for preliminary expenses of the company.'
" That a large amount was earned by 3Mr. iHoxie, on his contract, for
labor and materials, prior to December 31, 1864, and the same appears
by the estimate of the U nion Pacific lRailroad Cdmpany's engineer in
charge, of which a copy is hereto annexed; that all which 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 lRailroad Company.
"' That Thomas C. Durant at various times advanced money to said
Union Pacific Railroad Company, and also to said Credit Mobilier of
America, from time to time, as each required it, and said several corporations, 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 3Iobilier 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.
4' That the item $25,000, in Exhibit E of bill in suit No. 2, was money
paid to Cornelius S. Bushnell by the Credit MIobilier 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. CRAlNTE.
" Sworn to before me this Sth day of August, A. D. 1870.
[SE AL.]                                4EDWIN F. COREY,' Commisszioner for the State f Rhode Island in New York.
[Copy.]
"UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
" THIlRID MONTHLY EgSTIMAiTE.
" 0 tVe contractors for builtding the first huBndred miles.
"DECEMBER 31, 1864.' Tean miles grading and bridging completed. east of the Elkhorn
River, at $50,000 -$-..-0...................'....u 600, 000
"19, 500 ties, at 50 cents.-.-.... -.............   9, 750
$5o09,750 00
".Deduct for unfinished work, as follows:
"Station-buildings, equipments, &c., per:ile i.e- -.. —....    5, 000
" Iron ties, spikes, chains, and track-laying..15, 700
"' Tel miles deducted, at 20,r700 per mile. —2. ^..........0207, 000:'Two miles' bridging deiducted, at $7,000 per mile....  14, 000
Dilsbursements made by comnpany............................... 47, 176
2G8, 1'70 00
241,574 00




CReDIaT 1OBLLIER.                           371
~I WEST OF ELNKHIIORN  rWtfEIR.
"' 6 miles conmpleted, at $50,000           ----—. ——.   $300, 000
"' Deduct for stcation-buildings, equipments, iron ties,
spikes, chains, and track-laying, as above ----—..... —-, 700
"Bridging.... —-----.. —---. —---------------. —.  1, 800
" Differeince in gracding  west of Elkhorn -    -... 5,500
28, 000'6 miles deducted, at $28,000 pe mile —   -----....... 168,000
--   $)132,000 00' 10 miles nearly completed, at $50,000     -     -      -500,000
"Deduct for station-buildings, equipments? iron, ties,
spikes, chains, track-laylug, bridging, and extra
costs for grading...-.. -....... 28,000
" Amount requiredt to finish.    __...  1,000
29, 000
1 0 miles at aniouant required to finIisth, at, ~$29~,000 p er mile - 290. 290, 000
-    210,000 00
583, 574 00'Add fbr extra work, as directed by the special comGmittlee of the board.-.    18, 874 45
752, 448 45'  Ded-act November estimate.- -            —........................ —--  544, 954 45
207,494 00
" OMAIZHA. December 31, 1864.
I'  hereby certify that the above estilate to the contractors fobr building the first hundred miles of the Union Pacific Railroad, amounting to
two hundred and seven thousand four hundred and ninety-four dollars,
is correct. 
l"J. E. HOUSE,
"4Division Engineer.
"H. C. CRANiEo.
" In the supremne court of the State of Rhode Island.
ZIsaac P. Hazard  vs. Thom2-.nas C. _Durantl et al.  In Equity.  Suits Nos. 1
and 2.
i CITY' AND COUNTY OF1 NE'W ~YORK, 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 Railroad Company, from  May, 1867,
to ~May, 1869; that during that period deponlent 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 Railroad 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
Railroad Company, and were acknowledged by said railroad company
and allowed in a general settlement and adjustment of accounts between 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 belonged there, and that said drafts were paid by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and, when paid, were. charged by the last-named company
to said Gesner  agent.
" BENJAMIN F. HAM.




372                     CREDIT MOBILIER.'6 Subscribed and sworn to this 24th day of August, 1870.
I In witness whereof I have hereto signed my name and affixed my
official seal, the day and year first above written.
[SEAL.]                         6"GEORGE W. COLLES,
" Comnimssioner for Rhode Island, in New Yor7c."
Mr. Alley states that McComb and friends, finding themselves ousted
from the Credit Mobilier, associated themselves with Jim F]isk in a
scheme to wrest the road from the rightful owners, and that, to thwart
such scheme, they had to raise the enormous suni of fifteen millions of
dollars in a single day.
The facts are these:
MIr. Ames, then acting president of the company, gave directions to
the treasurer to receive no subscription for stock except when accompanied 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 fifty-five 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
subscription. 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 company, 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
HMr. 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 gracefully 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,
MKr. McComb offered the following resolution,  which was adopted
unanimously:'"Whereas the Hon. John A. Dix, heretofore elected a director and
president of this company, has accepted the office of minister plenipotentiary at the court of the Emperor of the French, and is now, and has
been'for several months past, absent at the post o'f his duty as such




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      373
minister, and we are thereby deprived of his valuable aid and services
in the management, of the company; and
"' Whereas, also, C. Hi. 5M]cCormick, of Illinois, alld 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 company: Therefore
"R Resolved, That while we deeply regret the loss which we have sustained, and munst continue to sustain, from the absence of the gentlemen named, and pca;rticularly from the want of the able and wise counsels which General Dix would give, if he were here with us, in the
present condition of our affairs, the necessity of having a full board of
directors compels ns.to fill the places made vacant by the absence of
t'he persons mentioned."
On motion of Mr. MvicComb,  Mr. John B. Alley was elected a director,of this company, to fill one of the vacancies existing.
On n)otion of Mr. McCoinb,  Mr. Franklin Gordon Dexter was elected
a director of this company, to fill one of the vacancies.
On rmotion, Bernjamin E. Bates was elected a dlirector of the comnpany, to fill one of the vacancies.
Mlir. Tuttle ihere tendered his resignation as a mlemnber of the board of
directors.
Mr. McComb offered the following resolution, which was adopted:
"' Resolved, That the resignation of Mr. Tattle be accepted, and this,board tender to Mar. Tuttle their parting regrets, and express their appreciation of his services and his uniformly kind and gentlemanly deportment.n"
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
iHr. Tuttle, and the board thus constituted transacted the business of
the company until the next election.
So much for the statement thlat Durant, McComb, and friends were
turned, out ofthe direction and some of them finally re-instated upon a
compromise.
Another statement Wvhich Mr. Alley mnakes, 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:
NE' wE YOR, December 12 1867.
" Present: Messrs. Ames, Durant, Dillon, McComb, Bushnell, Alley,
and Bates..
1" 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-mortgage bonds, and purchase an equal amount of full-paid stockl 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
Railroad company shall have signed a written approval of the contract
between said company and Oakes Ames, then a division shall be made
to the holder of the stock of the Credit 3Mobilier of America, say 60 per
cent. in said bonds and 60 per cent. in said Union Pacific lRailroad stock.
"Aye and nay vote being called, carried, six voting ave; Mr. McComb, no."      @
Subsequently it was deemed advisable by the conservative, element




374                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
in the trtsteeship that the Union Pacific Railroad Company 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 raise
money, and that the trustees should receive from them in lieu thereof,
for division under their trust, certificates entitling th6 holder to receive
first-mortgage bonds from the Union Pacific Railroad Company at some
future time, when it might be more convenient for the company to deliver them.
Upon a resolution to adopt this proposition being brought before the
trustees, lMr. Alley was the only one who voted na2y.
Subsequently, at a meeting held on the 3d of January, at which were
present?i~essrs. Ame, iDurant, Dillon, MceComb, Bushnell, Bates, and
Alley,  a resolution was offered that a supplemental dividend be made
of twenty per cent., in bonds of the Union Pacific Rlailroad Coumpany;
which resolution was adopted:, M'r. Bushnell being the only one voting
against it.
Uponithe occasion of declaring -the first dIvidend, rr. Alley, in a general 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 I 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, 3Mr. Alley roted 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 Awith
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 circunmstances that he was permitted to put upon the record his letter of resignation, enabling the trustees, in filling the vacancy, to av;ail themselves
of the counsel and advice of 3Mr. John. Duff, a gentl;emarn    of great railway experience.
So far from desiring to exelude me from the direction of the road in
consequence of any extrav:agance or mnismaunagement- on my part, the
letter which I here present from  Oakes Ames to Mr. MceCoomb, dauel
17th September, 1867, (at which time I was insisting that every stockholder should assent to any contract- for construction which might be
made -with themiselves,) shows the real object of these gentlemen in
seeking to exclu.de mne Ifom the direction:. AS.    e EnASTO     l etSemzber  17 1867.
EH. S. McCCo:lk, Esq.:
" DEAR Sin: I have called on Gov-ernor John A. Andrew, and got his
consent to act as one of the Government directors, if he should be appointed; 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 majority. He caunot hurt us half so badly out of the direction as he can in;




CREDLT 1MOBlz'LIEF:.                     375
and there is no pleasure, peace, safety, or comrl t w  ith him, unless hie
agrees to abide the decision of the majority? as the rest of us do.
6 Y ou1rs,1 tr'ly,
66 CAKE S AM H1TaES.- 
On the 16th of iAugust, 18675 Mir. Oa.es li'lAes made to the c         yom-tpany
a written propositi:on, of which thie fllowiing is a copy:
661 NWr Yo,  A:.g'us t  186   7 i.; To the preien &  c a boa., ro  of de'i - tors  fi ite tUTvaio,  Pc ijfi c RaiMlroand
Conpanyo
66 1OEITLEMF:. IL propose to construct for your eompany 667 miles of
your roa0d, commenci'Jng rat the 100th imeridian westward, tbr the followiug prices, viz: First 10 mliles, at $42,000 per miile; second 167 miles,
at $i45,000 per mile; third 100 miles, at $96,000 per mLile; fourth 100
miles, at $80,000 per mile; fifth 100 miles, at $90,000 per mile; sixth
1-00 miles, at $96,000 per mile; provided the details of a contract can
be arranged by a committee of your board;.tnd  ySelf stisfactor.l
6 Iespect fulIly,
"OAKES AMES."
On the same day this proposition was aceted  and referred to the
executive com mittee by the following resolution:
"'Rsesoveed, That the contracts adopted this day be referred to the
executive cosmmittee, e  ith authority to settle the details  and when the
same is approved  by said executiveT comm-it~tee, that the president pro
terz. and secretary  are hereby authorized to execute the same in the
name of the company."
At the time that this proposition wt7as accepted, it was gene.rally understood thant in some way the contract would be placed in other hands for
execution, tbr the benefit of all interested, Mr. Ames's name being used
merely as that of John Doe oir  ichard Roe,% or that of any irresponsible
person might have beeun inserted. And of these facts Mr. Alley -lmust
have been aware, for a simila.r p oposition had been made for a contract
in which the names of 2Mrt. Aley  and Mr. Crtane were used; but some
objection bleing made to 3'-.r. Alley, by persons better acquainted with
him thcan 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 coinpany will show.  It was further understoor   that the assent of' all the
stockholders in the company should be secured to the execution of the
contract; and this alone niaced it in their pow er to dictate how it should
be used, although Mr. ~Ames was not called uponal to make any promise
as to wh-at he should do with it.. The i orm of a contract was carefully
drawn up, and submitted to several of thie mnembers of the executive
committee for a.pproval as to the details, in order that t;he several copies
of the same might be prepared for execution, ready to be submitted to the
whole committee at their first meetin g. mAnmong the signers of that approval
were Springer Harbaugh and myself. Mr. HEarbangh iappended on the
same paper, below his signature, to be used in case he was not present
at the first meetinug, a note addressed to the execu:ftive comumittee%, of
which the following is a copy:
" To the Exec.ut;ive Com.mi-tEtee:
"As one of the executive committee,   I herewith accompany its acceptanee on  Ty pa. rt withI a letter reserving an option, as expressed in.said letter.
" ~ SPtRINGER HARBAUGH,
"Govermzent Director, and onze of the Executive Committee."
/~~~~~~~~teBxetv   omte.




37G                     CREDIT MIOBILIER.
I also append'a note, of which the following is a copy:
"AUGUScT' 18, 1867.
"I recormmend   the above with the UtnderstaYading that the assent of
all the stockholders is to be obtainedUed.
G T. C. DURANT."
At the first Ineeting of the executive colmmitee, 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 M r. Oakes
Ames, his brother, with our names appended to the same, as being approved without reservatcion or condition. A resolution was immediately
offered to approve the contract as above; which resolution was lost.
The following resolution was then offered and adopted:
VtesolvedC That the foregoing contract between the' Union Pacific
Railroad 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, snubject, however, to the written aplproval -of the
stockholders of the company, as understood by the board of directors
when the same was vbted upon."1
These records of the executive committee were on the same day submitted to the board, and by the board, by resolution, approved.
Subsequently, and on the 15th of October, Mr. Ames assigned the
said contract tb seven trustees —the terms of which assignment, and
other papers relative thereto, I submit herewith, marked F.
Previous to such assignment of saidccontract, the board, by resolution,
agreed to recognize said assignment, and accepted the guarantee of the
Credit Maobilier Company, and to release the said Oakes Ames from all
liabilities under the sanme, 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 lMr. Ames had a!ss8umed-amounting, as Mr. Alley says, to $47,000,000-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,
had been actually completed; the difference in price between the actual
cost of which and the contract price amounted to upwards of $3,000,0000.
In referefice to 3iMr. Alley's testimony relative to the resolution of J Luly,
1868, conferring upon me, as vice-president, 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 letter purporting 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 constructed; 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 informed that he could do more goodin Washington, where he had great
influence. I further found that his wife was the owner of one hundred
shares of Gredit 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 MOBILIER.                      377
men and 6,000 or 8,00(0 teams,) the compa,ly were liable to be called upon
for damages for not having the road located in time for the construction. 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 Sey'mour, (a man of Jarge experience in locating railroads,)
to go over the line in connection with the division engineer, to determine 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 I thought that the chief eagineer
would be unduly influenced in his duties or estimates by any interest
which his wife might hare 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 a,ccount of construction; and I called, by resolution, in the executive
committee, upon the treasurer. of the company to know by what atuthority such payment was mIade.
The following is a transcript of said resolution:
ENEwM  YORE, February 25 1869.
" On mnotion of MIr. Djurant,
Resotoved, That the treasurer report to this committee the authority,on which a cheek for $50,000, dated July 27, 1868, was paid; also,
whether there is any deficiency in the cash or bond account of the conpany; the authority on which the'payment of $11,000,000, or thereabouts, was made contractors in January; and also an explanation of
the check for $3,000 said to lbe given for a commission on a loan which
was not received."
On the next day, February 26, 1869, the committee received the fol1owin g report from the treasurer:
" ~UNIONT PACIFIC RAILROAD OFFICE,
" Ne  York, February 26, 1869.'4 In reply to the questions lropounded by the execttive committee of
the company, February 25, 1869, 1 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 of $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 treasurer, as he
says, by the direction of Mr. Am-es, president.
"As to the resolution relating to the bonds, I have given instructions
to have the statement made tup in full, which I hope to be able to lay
before you in a short time.'" Respectfully submitted.
": JOHN J. CISCO, Treasurer.
A. copy of the engineer's certifica:te, referred to in said report, I submit herewith, marked B.
It will be seen by this estimate that the chief engineer had included




378                      CRIED1TT  M:1 OBILIER.
in the amount due, under the Oakes Ames contract, a  Slarge -amount of'
work done beyond 6G7 miles, and for which the board had approved no
contraet, or submitted the same to the stockholders.  At their first
meeting, beinlg'!latch 97 1869, I submitteC.d the following' communication:
r N:T   o  i io~:c~ March 4, 1869
1o -t; +li? e,,;,    ~,J.iz,.,~? 07' i'coZn doio of th iboard of directors. of the  nTion PacC,/.
waitrooad Company:
"GE2NTLE'iE-N: I learn that whil4e I was absent. on business of the
e1ompany, payments were, made to the assignees of the Oakes Ames contract out of funds of the om pany for the construction or equipment, or
both, on the lines of -the road west of the 667 iniles mentioned in tha~
contract. As no assent of the stockholders has been given tofatny contract, or the extension of any contract for construction west of said 667
miles, and no authority exists for sucel plymenietsX,  protest against tihe
same, and-demand that all such payments; i-f made, be recalled, and the
sums so paid be restored to the conparny.
Re. pectfu8llyt, yo3urs
"THOIAS C. DUTRANT."
it also, on the Sth of MT'arTch sentu the followill-ng telegram to the chief
engineer:
"M 3t/Rci. 8, 1869.
" General G. 3I. Doc GE,
"; Chief UEnzineer, W'sington, D. C. 
"You hnave so largely overestimated the amountt due contractors that
it becomes my duty to suspend your acting as chief' engineer until you
give a satisfactory explanation of the same. A mistake of a trifling
amount might occur 5 but when it gives contractors hundreds of thousands of dollars it creates the suspicion that all is not right. You  immediate attention is requested, in order that if yon have an explanation
to give, it may be done before the report becomes public.'"T. C. )'DUBTAYINT, 1ice-P,;residnct.n"
In reply to which. re(eived the following:
W~ASImtNGTONx,. C., it.larch 8, 1869.
To rC. DurAIrNT, 20 Nassatu Strect:'T he last estimate was w made up by data fiurnished by Mr. Beed antd
3Tr. Crane. If there is any mistake in it  co uld not detect it, as all of
my estimates a;re made froim d.ata furnishe;d by them. I will be in New
York to-morrow.
"G. A. DODGE."
It is only necessary here -to stat e that Mr. heed and Mtr. Crane were
not in the employ of the railway company, but were both in the employ
of the contractors,. to show how  closely Mr. Amles, Mr. Alley, and the
chief engineer were looking after the interests of the road.  This estimate was not made by the chief engineer with the intent (as I believe) to
defraud the company, but is introduced to show how little lie knew of
the affairs of the company, when he went beyond the Oakes Ames contract,.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 Toa:TILER:.                      379
And in order that there might be no cause of compaint oni the part
of the public or the Government.j  I did, upon one occasion, when I
heard of the appointment of a new commissioner, send the following
telegram to the President of the United States:
"U. P. I}. It. Co.,
"'znd of trae.kc October 29, 1868.
" To the President of tlGhe Uigted States, Washington, D. C.' One of the comnmissioners appointed to re-examine the Union Pacific la-ilroad, now completed. and daso 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 refereed to.
I would, there.ore, most respectfully suggest, that the commission be
composed entirely of disinterested persons, believing  their decision will
be more satisfactory to the Government, the stockholders, and the public, and relieve all parties from unfriendly criticism.
"R tespectfully, yours,
"THOS. C. DURA NT,
" Vice-President U. P. If.. Co.'"
Although at some t, ime previous, 3,1r. Ames, the president, by virtue
of a resolution of the board, had appointed an auditor for the a,ccounts
in New York, and the details of payment were not in my department, I
still considered it my duty, as vice-president, actinrg nnder resolution, to
inquire occasionally as to their doings.
At,a meeting of the executive comrnmittee, on the same day on which
the tre:;surer rmade his report referred to, I offered the following resolu-.tion:
B ~eso1vued Thiat the treasurer be called upon to report whether there
are any certificates outstanding for Government bonds, on completed
sections of the road, for which the company has received the Government bonds, and also if the bonds so received are in the possession of
the company, or in any manner disposed of.
b" 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 i-e also be called upon for a statement of the certificates for
GovTer:nment 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 Goveminent bonds, to whom. and by what authority.
" And further, what rates of interest and commissions haIve been paid
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 samne."
It. MIcComb offered the following amendment,, which was adoped:
c" 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 anmount 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 MIOBILI:ER.
"NEw Yo011K, lifare7 11,, 1869.
hTo the board of diriectors of the Union Pacific Railroad 4Copany.:
" GENTLEIMEN: 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 resolution of the
board.
Yours &c.,
" T. C. DURANT."
My resignation was accepted, and the following resolutions were
passed virtually annulling the powers of the executive comtmittee:
" 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.'7
In order still to get at the report, I offered the following resolution:
" On motion of Mr. Dutrant,
" 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 VOakes Ames contract and the contract known as the Davis contract in extension, the matters of difference *on the payments for construction were adjusted, and the company
suffered no loss thereby. I submit a copy of the Davis contract,
marked "1 G."7
In reference to the accounts mentioned by John B. Alley, as between
the Union Pacific Railroad Company and myself, and the suits of I. P.
Hazard, I will simply refe.r to the affidavits filed in said suit of Sidney
Dillon, Benjamin F. LHam, 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 Rhode Island.
" ISAAC P. HAZARD ET AL. cvs. TiH~5mAS C. DURANT ERT AL.-JIN EQUITY,
Nos. I AND 2.
4"Affidavit of Olivei Ames.
" I, Oliver Ames, of North Easton, in the county of Bristol, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on oath depose and say that I am the
president of the Union Pacific Railroad Company; that in January,
1867, I, 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 Tsaac P. Hazard
against Thomas C. Durant and others, now pendling in the supreme
court of the State of Rbode Island, and of Schedule E0 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 ~Railroad
Company and }Rowland G. Hazard as defendants, I find each of the
sums in said schedules to be the same, or in part the same, which
forined 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, 1867, of $25,000.'The report thus made by ine and MVir. Cisco was accepted by the
board of directors.
" OL LVER AMES.'" Subscribed and sworin to before me, a notary public, this 12th day
of July, 1870.
[L. S.]                                   6 JOHIN EI. PDUFF,
Notary Public.'l
3 r. Lainbard offered the following resolution, which Was adopted:
a1 Resolved, That Oliver Ames, presidentp jo tten., and John J. Cisco,
treasurer, be a committee to inform themselves in regard to the details
of the so-called suspense-account of this company; also to audit any
further claims OIL this account, and that their statement to this board that
the facts in,1the premises are satisfactory to them shall end all further discussion, and that the accounts shall be closed and charged to construction.
" Meeting of board of directors, January 4. 1867."
[Copy.]
Mifessrs. A-mes & Cisco, a committee aippointed by virtue of a resolution passed at a meeting of the board of directors of January 4, 1867,
report as follows:
"Stlatemeat o/f -tspense-accovnt.
1864.
August 1. T.. Durant.... —  $44 549 45
25. T... Durant.                -                        4 000 00
Sept.  1. T. C Durant ---.- -...........                   66 32  00
14. T. C. Durant..............                13 128 13
14. T. -C. Durant.........  *-............    6,500 00
21. C. S. Bushnell..5...................    5* 751 631
26. G. T. M. Davis..         -     -                    3000 00
29  James. Kennedy....................            2    00 
29. Alexander Hay -          -4................    4 000 00
"  30. T. C. Durant -....,-...   50 000 00
30. T. C. Durant.   - - - -  -               *       8,000 00,
March 21. T. C. Durant         -......30,000 00
- 21... T. C. Durant-..................... -.... —        500 000
21. H. S. McComb.......................               000 0




382                     CREDIT MOBILIERZ..865.
Dec.  29. T. C. Durant................. $2 000 00
1866.
larch 30. Special committee..................  50 000 00
MPfaly'  10. Special committee........  207 000 00
435, 754 21'T 2o the board of directors of the Union Pacific ]lailroad Compaan y
" 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 foregoing is a settlement, and have found that the several anmounts were
paid, as above contained, upon proper aLuthority, and that the facts in
the premises are satisfactory to us.
(Signed)                       -; OLIVER AMES.
"JOIHN J. CISCO.
"NE   YORK2 Septelmber 11 186'7.; On motion of Mr. McCo-,miu
"Resolved, That the report of the special committee in respect to certain suspense-accounts be approved and adopted, and that said accounts
be closed and charged to construction."
" In the supreme court of Rhode Island, county off Newport.
"I SAAC P. HAZARD ET AL. vs. THOAS C. DURANT ET AL. —I]N EQUrITY.
"A.ffidavit of John A. Dix.'" John A.. Dix, of the city, county, and State of New X ork, on oath
deposes and says, that he was president of the Union Pacific lRailroad
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 company 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 subsequtently; 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. Durant was vice-president of said company during the
whole of said period, and was actively engaged in the construction of'
said railroad; that this affiant never knew of any sums of money intrusted to said Durant for disbursement which were not fully and satisfactorily 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 comnpany 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 Is aac 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 M1OBILIER.                     383
4 COOM':DONAVEALTHI- OF MASSAC-IHUSET'TS7 BiARN1ST&ABLE, S8,
Chatham Townz, A ugust 24, 1870:'" There personally appeared J-ohn A. Dix and mlade oath to this, the,within written instrumert, before mLe.
[SEAL.]'" VAIREIN ROGERS,
1 Nootary Public."
":in the supreme court of the State of Rhode Island, for the county of
Newport.
" IXAAC P. HAZARD ET AL. s. THOixAS C.. DURANTL ET AL.-IN EQUT QUITY
iOS. 1 AND 2.
"4A  dav2it of Joh3  J. Cisco.
" John J. Cisco, of t-he city, county, and State ofl zNew York, on oath
deposes and says that he was treasurer of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company frolm its organization until the removal of the office of the
corporation from New York tco Boston, in the year 1869; that during
that period all sums of nmon ey disbursed by said corporation were paid
by this affiant, and that 1o sums were paid without proper vouchers
-and under proper 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
kntown as No. 1, and know that the sums therein set forth as having
been delivered to Thomas C. Dura.nt were paid at the dates annexed,
upon proper vouchers then produced to me, audited by the proper committee, and were entered as having been paid in the proper and legitimate
business of said corporation; that subsequently the said items were carried 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 Jatnuary, 1867, Oliver Ames, president of said corporation, and
this afflant were appointed a committee to audit and settle said items, a
copy of which resolution is hereto annexed; that said committee examined said items, and the vouchers therefor, and fou11nd the same satisfactory, and directed the same to be charged to the proper constructionaccount, and made their report to that effect, bearing. date September'
11 1.867, 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 knowledge, information,
and belief, said Thomas C. Durant was 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. Dura,nt, fom time to
time, loaned large sums of money to tlhe corporation, which were repaid
to him by me, as treasurer, in the same manner and upon the same authority that other loans for borrowed, moTney weTie repaid.
"JOHN J. CISCO.
" STATE OF J-EW YOXRK,' City and County of TNe7l Y~or~'" Sworn to before me this 27th August7 1870.
[L. s.,l'"EDWINT  F. COREY,; Coalnmissiozem fror  hode iFsla7nd in Ne&tw' or1:,"




38 4                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
" EXHIBIT B.'K Statemnent o(f mzoneys received by Tlhonmas C. Darant, or by others, on his
orders, from the Union Pacific tRaitlroaCd Cormany.
"~ August 25, 1864. -        -----.........               $4 000 00
"1 September 14, 1864. —.................... 13, 128 13
"~ September 14, 1864    ----....................         6 500 00'"December 29, 1865................    120, 000.00
I" March 30, 1866. -........ 50, 00  00
Mayb  2O, 1866... -...................-                20,00000
"G. T. M. Davis-............. —.. —.......... 0       3, 000 00
" James C. Kennedy..-.........      2 000 00
"Alexander Hay......                                         4, 000 00
4 (Indorsed:) Exhibit B. Io P. Hazard et alC. vs.. rCo Dura it et al.
4 STATrE OF RHiODE ISLAND AND PR -OVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
" Office clerk sutyreme eourt, countr y of Newport, s:
4' I, Thomas W. Voodd7 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 ti.e Exhibit B, filed in cause
I. P. Hazard et al. vs. T. C. Durant et al., No. 1, as compared by me this
day with the original filed in this office on the 22d day of August, A.
D. 1869.
". In testimony  whereof I have 1lereunto set my hand, and aff ixed the
seal of said court, this 22l da- of August, A. 1). 1869.
[SEAL.]                          "'THOIMAS W. WvOOD, Clerick
[Stamp.1
" In equity.
ISAAC P. HiAZAlI D ET AL. vs. T. (     R. DUIANT ET AL
" Acffdavit of Josiah  Bardwell.
" Josiah Bardwell, of the city of Boston, Commonwealth of MXiassachusetts, being,duly sworn, says that he was a director of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company during the time covered by the complainants' bills in equity, and also a stockholder in the Credit Mlobilier of
Arnerica, 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
otherwvise appropriated the moneys of either or each of said companies 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 mtoneys 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 properly constituted officers and committees of the said respective companies.  He further says that lie believes 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
Rowland 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.'T0 JOSIAH BARDWELL.




CREDIT MOBILIER                      38 5
"' STATE OF M3ASSACHUSETTS,
County of Suffolkc, City of Boston ss:
" Subscribed a:ld sworn to this 12th day of July, A. D. 1870, before me.
[SEAL.]                       "CHARLES B. F. ADAMS,
" Commissioner of State of Rhode Island.
"IXSAAC P. HAZARD ET AL.)
Vs.             In equity.'T-Ioi AS C. DURANT ET AL.'Affidavit of Cornelius S. Bushnell.' CORNELIUS S. BUSHNELL, of the city of New Haven, State of Connecticut, being duly sworn, says that he was, during all the period of
timle 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, fraudulently 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 o-ff, and
settled formally and duly.
" Your 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
ldamages properly claimed and recovered fromz him.
"C. S. BUSHNELL.
~"' Subscribe   d and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 12th day
Juily, 1870.
4 "JOHN  R. DUFF,
4 "Notary Public."
As to MIr. Alleyes 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 colnnection 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 Mobilier; and on the cday following Mlr. Alley and _Mr. Oakes Ames, a self
constituted committee called on me. How far these geiltlemen 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 information; but I deny ever having stated to Mr. Alley that I paid Mr. Thad25 x




386                     CREDIT MOBILIER
dens 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 section introduced by Mr. Stevens, and insisted upon by him in his committee, in the amendment of 1864, had cost this company even a larger
sum of money than that named. In regard to that section, not understanding why it was in, I once called upon Mir. Stevens, in company with
Mr. Alexander Hay, and was informed that the affairs of the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western Road, (since called the Union Pacific,
Eastern I)ivision,) were in such shape that, if the amendment passed,
as was proposed, without the said section, the lien prior to the Government 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 restricted; 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 G-oyernment, 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
Railroad was a popular measure, and there was no difficulty in passing
any reasonable amendment in Congress which would insure the coipletion of the road. The difficulties we'encountered were from the parties
interestad 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 expended in this effort, the company did part with a valuable
portion of its franchise, on the representations of M,,r. Oakes Ames that
Iowa, and perhaps MIassachusetts Representatives, would oppose this
amendment of 1864, unless the Sioux City branch was given up to other
corporations. This also I supposel was doneto conciliate local interests~
As to the 650 shares referred to in NM-r. 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 lave been more than paid for. When
the said certificate was issued, instead of talking it from the offce
of the comnpany, 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 company. The assistant treasurer, as I was absent from  New
York most of the time, was instructed to deliver said stock to the parties 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 adcministration, 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 BMiOBILIER.                       387
In reference to MIr. Alley's statement as to the connection of Mr. McComb and myself with the Fisk suit, in justice to Mir. McComb, I will
state that, after the date of iMr. A mes's letter, which has been given in
evidence on this examination, it was proposed that several parties become subscribers to the stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Among them, Mlr. MIcComb 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 being the amount that had been called by the board of directors,) we found
that the treasurer -had been instructed to receive nothing less than par.
We were provided with certified checks to pay for subscriptions amounting to $500,000. While offering these subscriptiols, Mr. Fisk came into
the office to inquire relative to certain parties from  Boston, who expected to be in town that cday, and who, he said, proposed to subscribe
to stock in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and during that time
made subscriptions himself  On -Mr. MlcComb stating that he intended
making a subscription for the account of a Mir. Turner, Mr. Fisk remarked,;C I will make it for you," and made the subscription referred
to; and that was all the subscription that Mr. McComb had any connection with.
After Mr. Fisk commenced his 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 Mir.
Alley testifies would exhaust your patience. Those who know the history of the Union Pacific Railroad Company do not need to be informed
that the claim which Mr. Alley puts forward for IMr.,Amesand 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 opportunity to say one word on that subject.
_As I have stated, Mfr. Ames, Mlr. Alley, and their friends were not
original stockholders in the comrpany. 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 contract.  The claim  of patriotism  and of a far-seeing, intelligent, and
honest policy, put forward in their behalf, is ridiculous. In fact, so- uninformed were they of the mode of conducting the entire business, that
they did not distinguish and at times seemed incapable of distinguishing 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 iMr. Ames himself could
hardly have given them a clear idea on the subject.
Early in 1856, while in connection with C. W~. Durant and ienry
Farnham, engaged in constructing a railroad in Iowa, we employed engineers to make exarinations for a favorable point for crossing the Missouri lRiver, and to make observations as to a general route for a railway to the Rtocky Mountains. In the fall'of 1863, and prior to the organization 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 Cheyenlne Bridge, and all the other




388                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
principal passes in the mountains, while 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 ultimately succeed, I made my own subscription, and, finding it impossible
to induce capitalists to engage in the enterprise, I succeeded in obtaining 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 returning 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 correcting errors in any department, and still more fearlessly to oppose those who were ready to sacrifice ultimate success for immediate
profit.
So placed and acting, it is not strange that I met the malignant opposition of a few persons whose calumnies I should never have noticed,
had not the statement of Mir. Alley being placed on record seemed to
demand a refutation on my part.
I would also add, with reference to the general belief that extraordinary 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, comprising 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 remaining 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 thaf 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 Pacific, Eastern Division, which was, by the acts of 1862 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




nREDIT MOBILIER.                       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.
Fourth. By delaying the work of constructionin neglecting promptly
to establish the point at the base of the Rocky Monutains 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
hundred 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, compelling themn 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 Government toward the company; and compelling the coinpay to make sacrifices, thus increasing the apparent cost of the road.
A.
Nvw Yom,- Augtust 8, 1864.o
o -tIhe presidcent and committee oni contiracts of the Un'io? _Pac;c n airoad
Company 
GENTLEMEN: I propose to enter into a contract to build and equip
one hundred miles of your railroad and telegrapbh, commencing at Omiaha,
City, complying as far as practicable to the general specifications hereunto annexed, upon the following terms and conditious, 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 locomotives 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 October 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 maximnum 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 obtaining material used in the
construction of the road.




3 9 0                   CREDIT'IOBILIER,
Should the company decide to B arnetize 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 required to expend for the erection of station-buildinugs,  machinery,
machine-shops, t anks, equipments, &c., more than five thousand dollars
per mile, or five hundred thousatidt 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 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 finalu 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 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. Palyrments to be made asothe
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 Congress 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 provisions 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 company to execute
certificates of an amount to correspond to the first-mortgage and Government 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, including what may 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 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




CREDIT MOBILIERu                      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.
H.. HOXIE,
By H. C. CORANTE,
Attorney
U1. M. HoxIE, 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 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.
GEORGE T. A. DAVIS,
Special Committee.
Above contract is approved and ratified.
JOHN A. DIX.
[SEAL.]                          C. S. BUSHNELL.
G(EORGE T. M. DAVIS.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1864.
NEEw YoRE, October 4, 1864.
To the president ancl executive commnittee of the Union Pacific Railroad
Comnpany 
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 companyo
Respectfully, yours,
HE. M..HOX. IE,
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,
G-EO. T. M. DAVIS,
Special Committee.
OCTOBER 3, 1864.
NEW YORKI   October 7, 1864.
Whereas H. M. Hoxie, esq., of the State of Iowa, has a certain contract, 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, depositing at the same time, in the hands of said Thos. C. 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 defaulting 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 carrying out of this contract shall be
$1,600,000.
Thos. C. Durant, $600,000; C. S. Bushnell, $400,000; Chas. A. Lambard, 8100,000  H. S. M cComb, $100,000; H. W. Gray, $200,000, &c.
C.
Know all men by -these presents, that 1, Herbert.. Hoxie, for and in
consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, and for divers other good and valuable considerations me thereunto moving, do hereby sell, assign, transfer, and make
over unto John Duff, trustee, all and singular the agreements, between
the Union Pacific Railroad Company and myself, made by and contained in
a certain proposition in writing, signed by me and dated August 8, 1864,
and an acceptance thereof by said'company, under its seal,. dated September 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 secured, 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 agreement with the Credit
Mobilier of America, dated the 15th of Miarch, 1865, and all my rights
thereunder.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and sea! this 15th.
day of March, 1865.
[SE AL.1                              IHE3RBEPRT M. HOXIE.
[United States internal-revenue stampnp, $I1, eanceled.I
N. B. -. 24, ho March," w. ritten on erasure before execution.
Witness: BENJA MN F. BUNKER.
iWhereas IHerbert Al. Hoxie and the Union Pacific Railroad Company
have entered into an agreement by means of the foregoing writings,
(namely, a proposition from  said 1Hoxie, dated August 8, 1864, and an
acceptance thereof, dated September 23, 1864:)
Now these presents witness, that the Credit lMobilier 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 considerations them  thereunto moving, do hereby covenant and agree to guarantee, and hereby do guarantee, to and with the said Union Pacific
Railroad Company, that the said Herbert M. F1oxie, or his representatives 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 foregoing writings contained.
In witness whereof; the 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. DURANT,
President.
Attest: B. F. BUNKER,
Assistant Secretary.
Memorandum  of an agreement made the 15th day of March, 1865,
between the Credit Mlobilier of America, a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Penn.sylvania, of one part, and Herbert M.
Hoxie, of the 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 mutual grants and
agreements herein contained, the parties to these presents grant and
agree as follows:
Said Credit 3Mobilier 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 subscriptions to capital stock required by said contract from said Hoxie.
Said Hoxie agrees to, and hereby does, assign to said Credit AMobilier
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 H[oxie7s,
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 soassigned.
And for the better securing said Credit Mobilier against being made
chargeable on said guarantee by any default of' said iHoxie, 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 their pleasure remove, all agents and subagents which said Credit'Mobilier may deem necessary or proper to
conduct, manage, and ldo the business of constructing the railroad, otherwise 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 nunder the sanme, as collateral security for the performance 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 indemnified against all claims under said contract, and to pay the said
Hoxie five thousand dollars in cash and teh 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
annexed.
In witness whereof said Credit Mobilier has executed this memorandum, 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 New York.
T. C. DURANT,
President.
M. HO ox1E.
XWitness:
B. F. BuITKER,
D.
NEw YoRK, Xovicmber 10, 1866.
Sin: Referring to our informal agreement for the construction of a
portion df the Union Pacific Railroad, I hand you the following memorandum of contract, which, if in accordance with your understanding as
to details, you will please indorse as accepted, and 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 River, 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 company, 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 Government commissioners, and of the same character as to workmanship,
material, and kind of iron, &c., as in the construction of the one hundred miles east of the 100th meridian of longitude.
4th. Work on station-buildings, depot-grounds, tank-houses, or anything 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 turnouts 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.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      395
5th. The cost of iron, delivered at Omaha, is guar aiteed 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 construction, to be free of charge to the contractor over the completed portion 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 causing 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 contractor; 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 entirely beyond his control.
7th. In consideration of the faithful performance on your part of the
above work, you shall be paid twenty thousand dollars per mnile for each
and every mile so completed west of the North Platte River bridge to
the termination of the fourth hundred miles westward from Omaha, anad
nineteen thousand five hundred dollars per maile, and the cost of the
North Platte JRiver bridge, for each and every mile between the one
hundredth meridian and the west bank of the North Platte River, 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. DURANIT,
Agent.
L. B. BOOMER, Esq.,
Chicago, Illnois.
I hereby accept the above.
L. B. B00MEI.
I hereby become personally responsible for the payment to you of the
above.
THOS. C. DUIRANT.
The within contract imay 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. B. BOOMER.




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 btilding road west of 100th meridian, Deceimber
31, 1868.
100 miles, at $842,000 per mile....................., 200, 000
167 miles, at $45,0)00 per mile......................   7, 515, 000
100 miles, at $96,000 per mile............-........     9, 600, 000
100 miles, 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, 6, 000
46 miles, at $90,000 per mile -      —.........- -, 4 140 000
400, 000 ties, at $1 each4..............................      400 000
10 875 tons iron, at $110 per ton................  ]-  196, 250
30 tons splice-bars, at 8185 per ton................          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 F. Al. B. bridge-timber, at tO50 per............  25, 000
100, 000 F. M. V. lumber, at 845 per......                  4, 500
100 miles grading, at $20,000 per mile....2, 000, 000
Elquipment:
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 83,500 each......      283  000
14 baggage and express cars, at $2,800 each.-.             39 200
81 caboose-cars, at $2,000 each.....................     162, 000
949 box freight-cars, at $900 each.6.......0...0. 44, 600
1, 589 platfbrm-cars, at $767 each..............         1 218, 763
54 station-houses, at $2,500 each.                        135, 000
60 tank-houses, at $1,500 each...............          90, 000
70 wind-mills, at $1,500 each............... -..... 1057 000
10 coal-houses, at $1,800 each....................    18, 000
12 turn-tables, at 81,500 each...........                 18 000
North Platte round-house......................         80, 00
N-or.th Platte shops........                   150000
North Platte eating-house......... -         15, 000
Sidney round-house...................      20, 000
Cheyenne round-houlse....00.................., 800
Cheyenne shops...........................100, 000
Cheyenne eating-house.....                            22, 000
Sherman round-house..-..................          20, 000
Laramie round-house..........................          80, 000
Laramie shops.-................... -                  20 0000
Laramie eating-house......................            45, 000
Medicine Bow round-house......-....... -....  20, 000
lawlings Springs round-house..........             40,000
IRawlings Springs shops............-.     150, 000
Rawlings Springs eating-house.....-             27, 000
Bitter Creek round-house.        --..    *...........-  40, 000
Ilachinery for Bryan shops.................... 150, 000
60, 738, 863




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      397
Deduct unfinished work, as follows:
713 miles equipment, 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 CONTRACT," AND THE TRANSFERS OF THE SAME.
colpy of contract UT. P. R. R. C. with Oakes 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, witnesseth:
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, executors9 administrators, and assigns, to build and equip the following-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 IRailroad Company transport the material. The whole to be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, 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 exceeding six 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 regulation, and standard, as recommended by the
Secretary of the Interior, of the date of February -, 1866.
Third. Whenever one of the above-nlamed sections of the road shall
be finished 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




398                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 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, 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 engineer, or as approved from time to time by the company, shall be deducteid 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, 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 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, stiprulates 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 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 firstclass 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 general 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 satisfaction of the chief engineer, and to be of the same character as to the
workmanship andc  materials as in the construction of tahe road east of
the one hundredth meridian.
It is, however, understood that tall iron hereafter purchased, or contracted for, shall be of the weight of not less tha*n 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 stoue, when necessary for the protection of the same.
Tenth. Payments -to be made as the work progresses, upon the estimates of the chief engineer-in making which the engineer shall ceduct.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      399
from each section its proportion of the cost of equipment not then furnished, 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 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 difference between the amount realized and the abovenamed 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 second 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 capital stock of said company, and 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 100 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 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, station-buildings, &c., shall be expended under the direction of the party
of the first part, and in such proportion'for cars, locomotives, machineshops, 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 terim
~ railroad," and is to be constructed in the same manner and with similar 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 ag the
second part.
(Signed)                       OLIVER AMES,
C. S. BUSHNELL,
SPRINGER HIARBAUG@H,
THOMAS C. DURANT,
-Exec.utive Committee Union Pacific Rtailroad Complany.
At a meeting of the executive committee, held on the 1st day of October, 1867, a resolution was offered to approve the foregoing contracts




400                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
which was lost. Thereupon the following resolutions were offered and
adopted:
~;: Resolved, That the foregoing contract between the Union Pacific Railroad 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 stockholders of the company, as understood by the board of directors when
the same was voted upon.
Resolved,7 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,C. Durant, of the city of New York; Oliver Ames, of North Easton, Massachusetts; 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 the 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 Company 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 contract 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 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 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 expended in the work of completing said railroad and telegraph line, and
that the payments for the ftithful performance 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 performing the same, are therefore willing
to guarantee the performance and execution of the same for a reasonable 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 several persons named as parties of the second part hereto, and confidently
believe that said persons have large interests as well in 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;




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 Dart, and for divers other good and
valuable considerations herein thereunto moving, doth hereby assign,
set over, and transfer unto the said Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Amlles
John B. Alley, Sidney Dillon, Cornelius S. Bushnell, 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 Railroad Conlipany 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 railroad 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 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 respects, 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 reimburse themselves and the party of the third part hereto all moneys
advanced and expended by them, or either of them, 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 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 IMobilier 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 the first Wednesday of 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 the said trustees to have [ieen made and
earned as net profit on said contract, during the preceding six months,
to each shareholder only in said Credit Mobilier of America, whllo being
a stockholder in' the Union Pacific ~Ra.ilroad, shall have made and execated his power of attorney or proxy, irrevocable, to said several parties
of the second part, ttheir survivors and successors, emp)owerinil-)) them,
the said parties of the second part, to' vote upon at least six-tenlhq of all
the shares of stock owned by said shareholders of the Credit Mobilier of
26 x




402                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
America in the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company,
on the day of the date hereof, and six-tenths of any stockl in said Union
Pacific Railroad Company he may have received as dividend, or otherwise, 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 Railroad Company which had been so assigned to him at the
tilme 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 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 proceeding, knowingly hinder, delay, or interfere with the execution or performance of the trust and conditions herein declared anld 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 successors, trustees as aforesaid, in all their acts and doings in the execution
and performance of said contract, and in the execution of their several
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 request 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
loe 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 Railroad Company on
account of work dlone, or equipment or material furnished under the contract according to the estimates of the engineer of the Union Pacifie
Railroad Company, as provided in said contract, a copy of which statement shall be furnished to the Credit Mlobilier 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 sickness 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 inay 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
cr 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 and performance of said
trust and conditions, according to the true intent thereof; or shall a p
prop''iate to his own use or benefit any money or other valuable thi:g




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      403
belonging to or appertaining to said trust, fund, or property, he shlall
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 M3obilier 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 the premises, hereby
agree to advance, as upon 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 centuln 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 consideration aforesaid, anad for an amount equal to two anld 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 said 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 bie done and perfiormed 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 Maobilier 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 meridian 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 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 the said company, on the day and year above written.
(Signed)                      OAKES AMIES.
THOS. C. DUIRANT.
OLIVER AMES.
JOHN B. ALLEY.
SIDNEY DILLON.
CORNELIUS S. BUSH~NJELL.
L. S. M3cCOM'IB.
]BEiNJAMIIN E. BATES.
Signed, sealedt and delivered in presence ofCLARt  BELL.
(Signed)      THE CRyEDIT M1O3BILIER OF AM3ERICA,
By its president, SIDNEY I)ILLONI
Attest'                          BENJAMIN F. HAM,
Assistan~t Sccretary.




404                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
G.
NEw YoiK Flebruary 26, 1869.
The executive committee of the board of directors of the Union Pacific Rrilroad Company, pursuant to adjournment, met this day at the
office of the company.
Present: Messrs. Ames, Durant, McComb, Duff, and Buslhnell.
The following communication was then received from the vice-president, Mr. IDurant:
NEAW YORK, November 27, 1868.
To the board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company:
GENTLEMEN: I hand you herewith copy of contract and an assignment 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
the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. I found it
absolutely necessary, in order to carry out the wishes of the board, to
comlnmence work of this portion of the road at once. The present organization, with its large 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 stockholders not sanction the contract, you will have to make some fair arrangement 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. DUIRANT,'Vice-l'resident and General Agyent.
There having been no meeting of your board since the d'ate hereof, I
hand the report to your executive committee. You will perceive I have
taken the terms of the Oakes Ames contract as a base, believing that
to be the wishes of the stockholders who approved said contract.
E3BER, November 1, 1868.
Sm: I will build and equip, according to the specifications of the
contract made by your company with Oakes Ames, esq., all that portion 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
l)ro 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.
YOUrs, &c.,
(Signed)                              JAMIES W. DAVIS.
THiOIAS C. DURANT,
Vice-President and General Agcnt, Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Acceptefd, subject to approval of all the stockholders of November 1.
e (Signued)                   THOMATAS C. DURIANT,
-Vice-President and General Agent.
WEBER November 6 1868.
Know all men by these presents, that I, J. WT. Davis, do hereby, in
consideration of one dollar lawftul money of thle United States to me in
liand paid, and for other considerations to lme satisfactory, do hereby




CREDIT MIOBILIER.                    405
assign, transfer, and set over to Oliver Ames, Thomas C. Durant, John
Duff, Sidney Dillon, H. S. Mc(Jomb, B. E. Bates, and C. S. Bushnell,
trustees for the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company,
the contract made with me for building a portion of their road, dated
lNgvember 1, to have and to hold the same, as trustees aforesaid, and all
benefits and profits accruing from tile same, they assuming and paying
all losses and liabilities of every kind; said profits, if any, to be divided
pro rata according to the amount of stock held by each stockholder, or
to Vwhich he was entitled on the 1st dcay of November. This assignment
and the contract referred to being subject to the. approval of the aforesaid stockholders.
(Signed)                               JAMES W. DAVIS.
Witness:
(Signed) C. L. FROST.
By resolution, my action as to this contract was approved, and a committee appointed to obtain the assent of the stockholders.
AVASHINGTON, ID. C., January 30, 1873.
JOHN B. ALLEY, having been recalled at his own request, made the
following statement:
I wish to make a statement and have it go upon your record in relation to this matter of the Credit Mobilieir. There has been some misapprehension in regard to the exact position of the case, I judge from the
statements that I see in some of the Massachusetts papers, which represent' that there is a great discrepancy between 3Mr. 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 discrepancy. The statements made by Mr. Ames and myself before this committee may not have been as full or explanatory as they were before that
court, and for very obvious reasons to the committee. The committee
sitting in another room in this Capitol will probably go more fully into
that subject than this committee.
Now, the statement which was in some of the MAassachusetts papersthe Springfield Republican 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 corporation; 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 appears from the testimony, as published in this paper, that he went on to treat all the dividends made
tunder the Oakes Ames contract as having been made by the Credit
M/lobilier. It is my recollection, however, that Mr. Ames stated to the
committee distinctly, as I certainly did, that these dividends referred
entirely to the Oakes Ames contract, and were not dividends of the
Credit M3obilier, 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 officers and stockholders of both companies, with a single exception, perhaps, of Mr. McComb, that these
dividends were made by the trustees under the Oakes Ames contract,




406                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
and had nothing whatever to do with the Credit Mobilier as a corporation.
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 was 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 presume, to believe they misapprehended the
point. Certainly there is no -variation in the slightest d(egree in the
testimony we have given before this committee from that which was
given to the court.
By the CHAIR31AN:
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-M-r. 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 conversations between Mr. Ames and any of these gentlemen in Congress, who
afterward received stock, about letting them have it prior to l)ecember,
1867. From the testimony of nearly all these gentlemen it would seen
that their negotiations began about December, 1867, a considerabe time
after the stock had been assigned to Mr. Ames.-A.,I never knew anything about any negotiation, except with the three gentlemen I have
named. At a meeting of the executive committee at New 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 various 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. IDawes. 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 manner we found it was. When the new direction. came
in, in 1May, 1-867, 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 in trust,
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 New 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 " Very 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 December, but I think he is mistaken. for I called his attention to the fact
that it was while I was here, and that I 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 Luntil the 20th, and another
from the 20th of November; and the conversation I had with gMnr. Dawes
may have been in that rNovember session. Mr. Dawes thinks it was not
earlier than the 1st 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. 0, 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. [ was here at the commencement of the session in November, and I was here again in January.
Q. The pIoint 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 negotiations for even more than the amount of stock which was then assigned
to him. There was considerable'opposition to letting him have it, because the stock at that time was worth more than it had been before.
He may have designated the parties with whom he had made engagements, 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 m'ore 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 purchasers.
Q. If I recollect aright,* at the time this transfer was made to Mr.
Ames, Mr. McComb was there and objected to it? —A. Mir. McComb
said there was no reason why Mr. Ames should have his promises carried out any more than Mr. McComb should his; that he (VMteComb) had
made promises.




408                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Whomu did Mr. McComb say he had nade obligations with for
stock.-A. He said, I think, that he had promised stock to Mr. Bayard,
MIr. Fowler, and some other gentlemen. I thinlk he-said he had promised
Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, thirty or fifty shares; 1 had forgotten it until Mr.
Wilson named it the other day.
Q. Did he say anything about IMTr. Allison? A. IMy impression is
thathe 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.
Atmes said he would do the best he could to help Mr. McComb with any
promises he had made. That was about his reply.
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 30,1873.
BENJAMIN F. HAM3 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 fiar as I
knew anything about i, 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 healrd 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?-A..I did not.
WASHINGTON, Ja1nuaryl31, 1873.
CHARLES H. NEILSON recalled and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
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 br any memoranduin of the dealings between you anlld him?-A. I have no memorandumn made out in my own handwriting of it.
Q. Has it been your habit, whenever you have paidn him any money,
or received money from him, to keep no record of it? -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 donl't know what you mean by formnal. Have you kept anything
by which you could show the transactions between you — A. I have




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     409
given Mr. Brooks a checkl for $9,000 on account of a loan 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 memoranda of it; anything in writing?-A. I have nothing in writing to show. i
Q. Did you at alny time make any memorandum of it.-A. No.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Brooks made any 1-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 in writing on his part, or your part, as far as
you know? —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 fromt 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 Railroad Company, if I remeiqber right. Did you have thatt-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 (lid not give them to himt; they were mine; I merely
hypothecated them.
Q. Did he receive from you the same securities, bonds and stock, that
you received at the time you got the 100 shares?-A. Wlhen I got the
100 shares I received at the same time 200 shares Union Pacific Railroad' stock and five first-mortgage bonds; I gave him the five firstmortgage bonds.
Q. Did you give him the stockl'-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 1? —A.
I always retained the stock.
Q. But the $5,000 in bonds were given over to him as collateral security?-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 Miobilier stock.
Q. Did you at any time to secure that loan?-A. Afterward, as I received bonds from the company as an allotment, I gave him some bonds,
enough to cover the loan.
Q. But these were bonds you subsequently received as dividends
upon the stock?-A. Bonds that I received from the company, ten firstmortgage 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
TMobilier 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 dividendcl -
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you then delivered these bonds to Mr. Brooks as security?



410                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
A. Yes, sir; I delivered them to him as IL would do to any Sew 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. IDo you know when you received that cash dividendc?-A. Yes; the
18th of June, 1868, I received $9,000 in cash.
Q. That is 60 per cent. on the 150 shares?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. That you paid over to Mr. Brooks?-A. That I gave to Mir. Brooks
as part payment of the money I owed him.
Q. Did you pay him anything before that? —A. Not any money; I
nad merely hypothecated 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 you 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 e?-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 Mlr. Kingsland, his cashier, for it.
Q. Have you that receipt here — A. I have.
The following receijt wras handed to the committee:
"N vw Youn,7 Jcantuary 18, 1868.
" Received from 3Mr. Charles IX. Neilson his check for $9,000, to order
of Mr. James Brooks, and on said James Brooks's accounts.
" JAMES B. KINGSLAND."
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 — A. No;
I have not paid him any money; I have given him this collateral security for it.
Q. The same collateral you have spoken of? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does he hold all these collaterals yet? —. 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?-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 hands of
James Brooks?-A. Sixteen first-mortgage bonds.
Q. He has them yet?-A. Yes, sir; he holds them yet.
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 MOBILIER.                     411
been paid. I find no memorandum on my check-book, nor any evidence
of it. I have examined Mhr. Brooks's check-book and find 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 firstmortgage bonds, and fifty shares Union Pacific Railroad stock.
Q. Were these bonds and stock the same you received by way of dividends upon these shares? —A.'I received them as dividends upon the
one hundred shares of Credit Mobilier stock. I got no 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 upon- the one hundred shares? —A. Upon the one hundred 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 TMr. 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. HIas he,ever paid you anything? —A. HIe never has paid me anything beyond the $5,000, and the 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 never 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? Mir. 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
Air. 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. lNo authority, except
that he could easily replace them at any time if demanded.
Q. Was there any conversation in regard to replacing the securities?A. No conversation.
Q. Has there been anything said between you ahd 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. I 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,, that he must have sold the
securities in order to pay the loan.




412                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
(. That is a mere conjecture of his, because he has no such- securities
in his possession — A. A mere conjecture.
Q. Did you ask him how miucll he sold them for?-A. No, sir.
Q. You never made any inquiry about it?-A. He was very busy at
the timne. and  i 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 you 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 S0.
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 smake 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?-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 without 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   -A. I presume he retains them.
lHe 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?-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 in 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
handls?-A. No, sir; he cannot give any account of them.
Q. He does not claim there is anlytling due from you to him?-A. He
does not claim there is anything due.
Q. Is this the only transaction between you and him?-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 nme 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?-A. He says the loan has
been settled, but he does not know how.
Q. He infers that from the fact that hie does not find any securities in




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     413
his hands; he does not 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 hypothecated 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 I was 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; I 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 effort 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 fift~y 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 February, 1868.
Q. You went and got the fifty shares after you received this information 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 MIr. NIBLACI:
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 (lividend
to him as soon as you received it L-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 with the collaterals as security? —A. I do not know but I
might.
Q. Why (lid 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 mofney there, and I thought it was better to repay
him that loan.
Q. Do you think he was any Dmore entitled to that particular money




414                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
than any other money you might receive?-A. I was not in the habit
of receiving checks for $9,000 every day.
Q. Did you 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 checlk 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 him 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 I-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 3Mr. 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 CHAIRMAN:
Q. WVhat evidence has _Mr. Brooks of this loan?' Does he hold any
note or other obligation from youl —A. No; I presume Mr. Brooks
keeps a memorandum of the money he has let me have.,
Q. Do you know whether lie does or not?-A. I do not know that he
does. All the money I have received of him lately I have a memorandum of.
Q. He has no obligations signed by you?-A. No obligations. Being my father-in-law, I (id not: suppose it was necessary to be as formal in regard to these things as would otherwise be required.
Q, Do you keep in any form a memorandum  of the money you receive from Mr. Brooks — A. I deposited in my bank the money I received from him $ —14,000. There is an entry in nmy 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 Miobilier
stock.
Q. How does this entry come to be in your check-book?-A. I received 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 M3anufacturers' Bank.
Q. 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 bank, 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 Mir. Brooks? —A. That is the
only evidence I have.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     415
By Mr. MIcCrAY:
Q. You have received from Mr. Brooks $14,000 since you paid him
89,000; was that all received at one time, or at different times?-A. I
have stated that $13,750( was received at one time, and $350 at another
time.
Q. Can you tell when you received the $13,750? —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 $9,000?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And during all that that time lie held your collaterals?-A. IHe held
them.
Q. Why did you leave so large amnount of collaterals in his possession
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 M3r. 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?-A. There
is no fixed custom about it. This thing was done hastily with JMr.
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?-A. M1ir. Dillon does not acknowledge
that he has sold them. I-le does not recollect anything more than that he
had the securities, and does not now find them in his possession. From
that he infers that the loan was canceled in some way, and I think it
wras not unnatural, as the securities held as collateral would have sold
Ifor just about the amount of the loan and interest.
Q. aWould not almost any business man have an account of the proceeds of the sale somewhere according to your custom, in New York @-,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 ismsufficient proof to me that he had my bonds.
By M1r. MERRICK:
Q: Did you not keep a book in which you made en tries of these various
transactions? -A. Myregular business is not that of a stockholder. iMy
regular business is of a different Iature, in connection with insurance.
I keep regular books in lmy 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 nmy 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 operations?-A. Yes, sir.




416                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 in 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 lie 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 on?-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 I 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 yonu -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 on the bonods 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 onhave received from Mr.
Brooks in that way I-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 in
the aggregate front Mr. Brooks about $24,000, ald. I have given him
securities that would not sell for that in the market in the aggregate.
Q. In ascertaining 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?-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, 8350 or
$375, I think perhaps the latter was.
Q. Do these two'sumns make up the entire amount you are ind3ebted
to iMr. Brooks?-A. I owe him a thousand dollars still oil the Credit
aMobilier matter.
Q. Whalt becomaes of these checks you have received from time to
time; have you reckonLed them in to make up the:lggregate sum? —A.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     417
Not to make up the aggregate sumn 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 me-morandaum deposited in my check-book; I probably have not, however, in
full, because I lhave probably taken them sometimes to the bank, 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 n —A. I should think it must be in the aggregate $3,500
in all that I have received.from him on account of these co'upons, in
the checks he has given me.
Q. What is the rate of interest on these bonds?-A. Six per cent. 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 collatertals, when we come to settle up the
account.
By Mr. BROOKS:
Q. Have you any memorandum of the transactions yo.u had with Mr.
Ham, in regard to the dividends in your Credit Mobilier stock?-A. I
have some notices which I received. I have: a couple of notices of dividends 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, notiifying mne there are some dividends due me on one hundred shares of
Credit Mobilier stock standing in asmy name. It is sig'ned by Benjamin
F. Ham, assistant secretary. The other is dated the next day, March
4, 1868, stating there are still some dividends due, and asking me to call
that afternoon and receive them.
Q. What does the notice of March 3 refer to — A. It refers to dividends due me on one hundred shares Credit Mobilier stock which I
owned at that time.
3Fr. Brooks stated that he introduced this evidence for the purpose of
showing that the stock' was recorded atthe office as belonging to Mr.
Neilson. The notice was directed to Mr. Neilson'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 1 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.
By the CHAIRmMAN:
Q. You got just the same dividends pro rata on the fifty shares that
youa did on the one hundred shares?-A. The same ipro rata, I presume.
Q. The same per cent. in bonds, money, and stock?-A. The books
will show what I received; that was my bnderstanding.
Q. I understand you to say that the coupons on some of these bonds
you received and collected yourself? —A. I collected them myself.
27 x




418                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Why 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. D)illon nlever
notified me to take it up,. It was satisfactory to both parties apparently
to allow it to run.
By Mr. BRoocs:
Q. You 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. A My check-books will probably show on my
side, and his checlk-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 checkbook?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that there is a basis of settlement whenever we come to a final
settelement -A. Yes, sir; there is no doubt about that.
Q. Have you ever dealt in any other Pacific Railroad securities besides those that have been spoken of here? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what form l-A. I have bought them for a rise of one or two
per cent., and sold thein through my broker.
Q. This, then, is not the only transaction you ever had in Union
Pacific securities? -A. No, sir; I have dealt in almost every stock on
the list, at different times.
Q. You 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 1871; for instance, when the suspension of Oakes Ames
took place, and all the securities of the Union Pacific Railroad Company went down as they did?-A. I 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 CHAIRMAN:
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. WTas there anything said at the time about the rate of interest you
were to pay?-A. There was nothing said that I recollect.
Q. W.as there anything said about the length of time you would be
likely to want the money?-A. No, sir.
Q. NothiPg said when he would want it of you?-A. No, sir; this




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     419
was a call loan; it was not a loa, n on time. H<e had the right to call
on me the next day to pay the money back. He had the right to call
for it at any time he wantted it, and I had the right to pay whenever I
got ready.
Q. Do you mean to say that it is customary or usual for loans made
in that way to run live years i —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 loauns in New York, run five years?-A. A large proportion do not, I presume; but there are instances where they do.
Q. There are solne 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. I)illon should not call
on you for all that long period of time — A. It is a matter that seems
to have been neglected by Mr. Dillon. IHe 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. Dillon'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, lie 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 mlade it for your
interest to go and take them r.-A. No. If I had taken the securities
from Mr. Dillon, I should have had to borrow the money somewhere
else, and I conld 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? —A. That was
merely an assumption. I ama sure now, since I have looked over Mr.
Brooks's check-book, that he never paid it.
Q. Had you. then any idea, that Mr. Brooks had paid it — A. I had
no proof in my possession that he had paid it.
Q. Had you any idea in your mind that lie 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 I said that if
anybody had paid it it mst have been Mr. Brooks.
Q. Did you know, prior to the time you testified before, that Mr.
Dillon said it had been pald — 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 eA. My supposition was that the loan was still due to Mr. Dillon; 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 eA. That is all.
Q. You have never received them?-A. I have never received them.




420                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. You say you had a conversation with Mr. Dillon the other day, in
which Mr. Dillon stated that the loan had been paid; did you state to
him that you held the receipt for the collaterals?-A. I told him. He
said he wanted to investigate it firther; that he could not find the
securities, but was going to make further examination. Since then I
have not talked to him about it.
Q. Did you notify him that you were in possession of the receipt eA. I did.
Q. Did you offer 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 consider 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. Bnooms:
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 themn 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 observation.
WTASHINGTON, D. C., Janvary 31, 1873.
JOHN B. ALLEY, recalled at his own request, made the following statement:
I only wish to say a word in 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 I 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 Railroad Company and the Credit Mobilier could be had, the American people would
discover that the cry of " stop thief" was'raised by the thieves themselves. I do not expect now that this committee will go into that investigation; but I hope the other committee, known as the "' Wilson committees' will mlake 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 came into the direction of that company; that large sums Qf money
had been expended and unaccounted for, that it is false. He has 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 testimony of Oliver Ames, the president of the




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     421
colnpany,- before the other committee, fully corroborates. With regard
to that matter I will further remark, that the individual who is charged
with lhaving received $250,000 of that money is now confined in jail by
order of the House of Representatives for contempt in refulsing 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.
WVith 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 believed a word of it. I stated then that Mr. Stevens's
character and position forbid its' 1elief. Mr. Oliver Ames has testified 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 unnecessary for me to say another word. Dr. Durant has spoken of a
large subscription by myself and 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-Dnrant-McComb subscription. As a matter of fact, it was subsequent 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 lie did of the company,' which
was, that unless the company paid him  $100,000 lie would injure
themn  a million; to which  I replied that, so far as I was concerned, the company should never pay him a single dollaa;, no matter
what might be the consequences. I 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
Wvord about him. He is certanly well known to one of the gentlemen
who sits at this table as a mnember of this committee, as a very able and
true man, and an honest man. I do not think there is a man of gobd
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
nmy 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 I thought was due to the Government, to the stockholders, and to all parties in interest, fully explained. The views therein expressed furnish ly 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 MOBILIER.
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 because I was opposed to it upon the
ground that any wrong was done to anybody, because all the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company were to redeive 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
rmy friends, that I opposed the contract, a s he will state to you. Dr.
Durant I!aS 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 interest was
so small, so trifling as compared to theirs, and indeed to almost anybody'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? It is true, as he says, that he gave ne a call
for two hundred and fifty shares at 160; he first offered to sell because
he wanted to increase my interest, and he gave, of cours,-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 the ten
d(ays 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
a1ll 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 committee, 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 W'ould be
no difficulty in getting my vote because he had done what he had, 1
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 purchase 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 ftact; so
that if there was any wrong in this matter it seems to be with Dr.
D)urant 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




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     423
to the report of the committee on which Oliver Ames and Mr. Cisco were
appointed ill regard to this expenditure of four or five hundred thousand dollars. All this occurred long before we had anything 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 Darant
told him that lie 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 coiunsel-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 I 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.
WASHING-TON, February l, 1873.
HI. S. MtcCOB re-called and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. At the time of'your former examination you proposed to
produce some further letters from 1Mr. Anmes.-Answer. I have made
search for them and have found some, but some I have not found.
Q. Will you produce such as you have found?-A. I have some unimportant 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 TMr. rAmes you have? —A. These are
all I can find. I find here in Mr. McMurtrie's letter to Air. 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 Ma, reh,
one of Septellmber, and one of November, 1868, and also one of February,,;
1868; but I cannot find the one referred to in Mar. McMurtrie's letter to.Mr. Gowen. I took all these letters biack 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
examinedl by the committee fand not placed in evidence, as haviiig 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;
th'at was produced before the examiner. All my papers that were produced have been marked as exhibits. I took the originals all back, because 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 haive looked over my papers enough to
satisfy myself that I cannot lay my hand upon that letter.
Q. Can you state the conttents of the letter?- A. I can state something of its contents, but I would rather not speak of the substance of
it, because I have not the letter to produce. I have already testitied ir
substance what was in it, and the substance of mny personal conversation on the samne subject, as' well as what was in the letter. I might
say that there is a letter here fromn General Dodge, in which reference
is made to a resolution before Congress. He was a member of Congress at that ti me. 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. nMcMurtrie'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 mly cross-examination unless these original letters
of Mr. Ames were put in.
Q. Did you say.you could state the substanlce of this letter of Mr.
Ames to you of April 13, 1867?-A. It was not thatletter I said I 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 letter to Gowen.
Q. What letter do you refer to that you can state the substance of?A. The letter of Mr. Ames of some time 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 repeated the substance of it as being in that letter?A. I stated it as having been said to me, and as having been written
by MIr. Ames.
Q. State, as nearly as you cafn 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 youi received the letter.? —A. I think it was
very nearly the same time; there was not many days' difference.
Q. You received the letter fiom i Mr. Ames here at Washigton? —A.
0, yes; it was written fronm Washington to me, at WTilmington.
Q. Do you think Mr. Colfax was named in the letter; that he was
referred. to by name by 3Mr. 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. You are satisfied, from your examination, that you have no further letters or documents?-A. Not that I can finld; 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. McCR:ARY:
Q. You have referred to some ruling of the Speaker.-A. Yes, sir;




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     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 you know what ruling the Speaker had made? —A. No, sir; I
do not; I have no knowledge of the congressional proceedings referred
to, and have not read anything in reference to it.
By Mr. NIBLACIE:
Q. I understood you, when you were before the committee on another
occasion, that he had made some ruling in referefice 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 personal conversation, and the letter which I stated the substance of.
By Mr. MoCRARY:'
Q. You have not examined the Globe to see what that ruling was eA. 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 (lon't 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 f-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 d —A.
No, sir; it gives no date of any letter except that of April 13th, 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. MIcMurtrie 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 him 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 February, 1868, but that you do not know tihe 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 inl 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 MAr. Anmes tell you — A. No specific thing; nothing
more than sonething that had been up.
Q. Did you infer that it was some ruling he had made as Speaker; did
3r. Amnes say something of that kind — A. 1 inferred from his expressions that it was some parliamentary maneuver which a presiding officer




426                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
conlcd perhaps judiciously use, and which resulted in. benefiting the company in some way. 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 iln the Globe?-A. Yes, that is the reason that I
am very careful in speaking about it. I am not certain that MIr. Colfax's
name was used, or whether he was referred to as SpeaLker.
By' Mlr. BANKS:
Q. I it not possible that another inember meight have been referred
to?-A. Such things are possible.
By Mr. McCRARY:
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 (HAIRMAN:
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 gentleman with whom I sat at table this morning, and who recollects a conversation between himself and myself in reference to what I said of a conversation between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley, during Mr. D urant'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. Durant'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, and 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,Railroad
Company, owned by Mr. Dnrant. I saw in thltt 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 declared, and 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 director, 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 the
Union Pacific Railroad v?-A. Yes. I have this morning asked, in the
other committee-room, to see a copy of the original minute-book of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company of that date.  They tell me that book
is missing; that the original minutes are missing from October, 1867, to
Marchj 1868; that they cannot get them. Mr. Durant has a copy of
that book, and I saw what I have stated on his copy of the minutes ot
the executive 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 Government 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 that, notwithstanding, he acted as a direct6r before then —at least




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     42 7
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 comulittee
as Government director of the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
By Mr. NIBLACK:
Q. From what books do you derive that information? —A. Fromn'Mr.
Durant's copy of the executive committee's minute-books.
Q. The copy Mr. Durant has purports to be taken from the original
book?-A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. BANKS:
Q. By whom was that copy made?-A. I do not recollect.  It has a
notarial seal on it; it is a notarial copy.
By Mr. KIBLACK:
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 procurement 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 expenditures, about which there was
some difficulty in producing vouchers for the items.  There has also
appeared some statement about a large amount of money having been
paid at WTillard's Hotel at one time.-A. I only paid my own bills at
W~illard'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, personally, of the expenditure of a dollar in Washington for any such purpose. I was on a committee in conjunction with Josiah Ba[Idwell, 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
Anmes present before we should join in making the examination, andt
telegraphed for him to come oil. 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. off;
as I said. I prepared a report upon the sutbject 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. Durant must not be relieved from the odium placed upon him by the statement that these vouchers were for the expenditures of money that he
could not account for. That remark struck mie with very great force.
I remember saying that'if Mr. Alley was that stripe of a man he and I
must be two people froln that time on.
Q. Did you pass on all the items of MIr. Durant's account in that way?
-A. Yes; and Mr. Bardwell macde a memorandum of them.
Q. You have heard of two $5,000 checks which Dr'. Durant says he




428                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
gave to influence the election in Iowa in 1867; do you recollect about
those checks or vouchers?-A. I recollect seeing the checks.
Q. Do you recollect whether he claimed thenl as vouchers for money
expended for the Union Pacific Railroad? —A. I 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;
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 whenl we had this talk.
Q. VWas there any one present with us when 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 conversation.-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 I gave was that Mr. Durant
was a dishonest man: that these vouchers were not satisfactory, and I
utterly refused to sign that report?-A. I did testify to that, and I repeat 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 conclusions 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.
McCoMBn vs. TIHE CREDIT MOBILIER.
DEAR Sin: On Thursday, December 23d, you have appointed to close
the cross examination of Mr. 2McComb, and to proceed with your evidence.
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 memoranda taken from them. Some, at least, were to be sent me next day.
None have been sent. lel stated the other day they had been withheld 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 following 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.   -.......-.    1.866
Jul..................    1866
September............  1866
December............        1866
January............1..8............ 1868




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     429
I would also like to have a copy of M3r. Ames's letter of April 13, 1867.
Exhibit No. 2, Awn.
Very truly,
R. C. MC. MiTMUTlIE.
hAS. E. GOWEN, Esq.
[Private.]
FORTIETH CONGRESS U.NITED STATES,
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., Febrluary 17, 1868.
Eg. S. McCoCIB, Washington:
I write Tracy to-day. When you go to New York, get my report to
you and let him read it. It is important that he should take a decided
stand for the Childs' Mill crossing; also for the C. B. transfer grounds.
If we swing away south we will be virtually in the wilderness with our
transfer- no train or accommodation near-and will strike a fatal blow
to the interests of Western Iowa. The C. R. 1. & P. R. R. certainly
do not want to add five to eight miles to the distance to Chicago foi
benefit of B. & Mo. R. R., 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. Durant, 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 Railroad 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 Railroad Company was relatively
and proportionately nearly three times as much as in the Credit Mobilier.
I will say, further, in relation to my position on the subject of declaring 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:
Question. Do you know anything in reference to the conversation be




430                   CREDIT MOBILIER.
tween Mr. Brooks and Mr. Alley in regard to Mr. 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
1 did.
Q. Did you hear Mr. McConmb 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
subject — A. NTo, sir.
Q. Did Mr. McComb, about the time of the issuing of these fifty shares
to Neilson, say anything to you in relation to Mr. Brooks's action or in
regard to what Mr. Brooks did?-A. Mr. Durant was in Europe then.
I was in correspondence with him. Mr. Brooks was always supposed to
be a friend of Mr. Durant. Mr. McComb came to me and wante(d 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?-A.
I think not. I have no recollection of it.
By Mr. 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. I 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 MIr. 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 conversation
between Mr. Alley and Mr. Brooks?-A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Did you ever make any report of this conversation you had with
Mr. McComb in writing to Mr. Durant? —A. I did, either by letter or
telegram. I do not know what it was. I was writing to him very often.
I was looking after his business.
Q. You either wrote to Dr. Durant or telegraphed him to that effect?A. I think so. I kept ppsted on these matters and kept 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 Mobilier e?-Answer. I have not, and never had at any time. I had no connection of any sort or description with the Union Pacific Railroad Company 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.                        431
share of Union PacificI Railroad stock until after January, 1872. 1 not
only have no interest in the Credit Mobilier, but in fact my interest is
adverse to t/hat corporation.s
Q. Will you define in plain English the meaning of the French words
Credit MIobilier, when applied to the building of a railroad in this country under the circumstances attending the building of the Unionl Pacific
Railroad?-A. Premising that all I know of the Credit Mobilier is derived 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 Railroad Comnpany since my election in 1872, I will say that the Credit Mobilier, 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 construction company?-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 I saw no temptation to invest 7money in an
enterprise where the whole capital, in my judgment, would be lost.
Q. Did youL 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?-A. Beinig considerably connected with railroads I gave some general attention to the subject which I suppose
every intelligent mian is more or less familiar with, and I came to the,
conclusion that the whole enterprise except as a Government measure
was 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 runninzg expenses. The reasons which impelled me to
that conclusion were the character of the country, and the whole circumstances surrounding the case. I, therefore, let it go by, notwithstanding all the prolnises 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 fronm 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 understood 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 mistaken.
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 railroads in different parts of the United States?-A. I have been interested 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 I have been
and am connected with, are branches extending fromn main trunk lines,




432                     CREDIT'MOBILIER.
in which I am largely interested. I -am president of the Lalke Shore and
Michigan Southern Railroad Company, a railroad extending friom Biufihlo
to Chicago. I am interested in the construction of several feeders or
lateral branches leading to the main line. The purpose of their construction 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 Railroad Coinpany, unless finished to the Pacific, there wvould probably have been no traffic, and I had
no anticipation of any settlement of the country which would insure it.
Q. Is it not also true that when the construction of the Union Pacific
Railroad was commenced there were no termini east or west, and no
connections with it?-A. There was no line of railroad from Chicago to
the Missouri River; it impressed me as a wild adventure.
Q. In the construction of such a road as that through a savage wilderness, 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 indiucement, 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 utterly 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 yotu 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 years past, I
should say ten or more, few roads have been built except by means of
construction companies; and by constr'uction companies I mean' by parties associating themselves together, with or without the 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 suich a coImpany and the
Credit NMobilier? —A. The only difference is, that in this case the
directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company —some of thetn —were
also the directors and managers of the Credit Mobilier. They, therefore, dealt with themselves, and became subject to the rules of equity
urisprudence affecting the relations of trustees and cestmti qzte trusts. I
have never been connectedl with any construction comp ny whichl sustained the technical relation of directors of the company whose railroads were being constructed. In this particulacr case, it may be said,
perhaps justly, that these meh bargained with thelmselves, 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
Raifroad 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 Railroad Comnpany evidence sho-wiig that
that corporation, Government directors and all, assented to these deal



CREDIT: MOBILIER.                     433
ings with the Credit Mobilier. There is also upon the records evidence
going to show that the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad
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 construction 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 1872i and
ascertained that these large dividends have been received by other parties in the course of construction; and whether we have or have not
claimsliagainst such of the directors of the Credit Mobilier as sustained
the technical relations of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, is a legal question which may or may not arise; and it is a question that has not perhaps been adjudicated, as to what right stockholders
purchasing stock in the open market acquire in respect to past transactions which may be subject to criticism.
Q. About how large a percentage of pro-fit 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 construction 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 Vermout, in which I believe we took the bonds at par and an equivalent amount of the stock, and we expected to make 100 per cent. out of
the transaction; but i 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 excessive 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 happens 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 exs-VicePresident WVade, George Ashmum, now dead, Mr. Williams, of Indiana,
and others with whom I was associated, I want to ask you two questions. First, what time this Credit Mobilier was organized?-A. From
28 x




434                     CREDIT TMOBILIER.
my examination of its history I believe the Credit Mobllier 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 AMobilier 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 responsibilities. The State of Connecticut has a general law under which enterprises are being conducted in various parts of the world.  Mlining
companies are organized under the general laws of lNew 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 AMobilier charter assumed togive. This Credit MViobilier charter was no better than half a dozen
thers.for oil production, pipe-]lines, and many mining operations conducted in various parts of the country under State charters. The Panama Railroad was built under a charter from, the State of New
York. In the case of the Union Pacific Railroad there was an absolute
necessity for the intervention of a corporation to protect against personal responsibility the men engaged in an enterprise of so much magnitude 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 ordinary means of capitalists, no man of prudence would embark in itAexcept where his liability was limited by the extent of his subscription
under a charter limiting personal responsibility. In case of a small enerprise, not extra hazardous and promising well. parties of responsibility may be willing to invest without the intervention of such a corporation. 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 dissolTe
its connection with the railroad coimpany?-A. It is my understanding
from the history of this matter that the Government directors had previous to that time assented to a contract of this corporation with the
Union Pacific Rtailroad 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 proceeding; was it to break up its relation to the Union Pacific Railroad, 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 voui duty; if it
was the object of the Government to secure the construction of the road,
means m ust 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.
M3'r. BRnoowis. I was a Government director under the law of 1864.
WITNESS. Under the law of 1.862, 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 Goverllnment d(ireetors, persons whIo,were not stoclholders




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       435
of the compainy. The law of 186I changed that scheme, and provided
for twenty directors, fifteen to be elected by the stockholders, 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 1862 does not contain any provision
that the acquisition of stock in the Union Pacific Railroad 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 Government 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 gexneral rule of statutory construction that when the subject-mlratter 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 implicatioil, of the old; and I
do not find in tlie law of 1864 any inhibition against a Government director owning stock in the Union Pacific Railroad Company. If you are
to presume that Congress, in the law of 1864, meant to retain the provisions as to Government directors which are not repealed by the law
of 1862, then I am1 mistaken; butt 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 oughtl, perhaps,
to be stated that the same reason existed inl 1864 as in 1862 why this
class of Government directors should be parties adverse, if you please,
to the interests of the stockholders of th;e Union Pacific Railroad; bu.t
there is entire silence ii the law upon that question. I do not know
what the views were, or iwhat the policy of Congless. It is certain that
there appears upon the records no objection on the part of the Government directors,' at any timrie, to that Credit Mobilier scheme of construction.
Q. 1 am asking these questions because it is calleged that the use' of
my son-in-lawrs 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 3Mobilier which made it necessary that a man owning
stock in that corporation should also own stock in the Union Pacifie
PRailroad Company — A. By the scheme adopted, as I understand it,
a stockholder in the Credit M3obilier might- or might not become a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad Company. As a matter of fact
the stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company was divided among
the stockholders of the Credit 1MVobilier, and the division of such stock
was anticipated'in the event of the Government securities and the
first-mortgage bondls 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 M:obilier
on the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad was larger than in the
construction of the Panama Railroad, or of the Nicaragua 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 Railroad.
The earnings of the Panama Railroad were very large during the early
emigration to California, and during the gold excitement. I do not feel
able to say what would be regarded as an inordinate or extravagant profit,
considering the hazards of this enterprise. There can be no rule applied 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 River. They were compelled to con"
struct their road over a country furnishing no timber, no traffic, no fuel,
and 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 heard
of any profit sufficient to tempt me to incur the hazard of investing in it.
Q. Would you, or would the public, have justified me and my associate 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 had 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 traffic will reach ten million dollars; I do not think you could raise
the capital to build it to-day.
Q. State what peculiar difficulties and dangers the road encountered
in consequence of snow-storms during the last winter.-A. I came in
as president in ZMarch, 1872; the road was blockaded with snow for
about two months.  WVe 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 Pacifie Railroad Company
since March 6, 1872, and you know, naturally, what the interests of the
company are now.-A. I am the executive officer 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
Miobilier 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 Railroad 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 the
road to the extent of twenty-seven millions of dollars, which originally
was the first mortgage on the road. In 1864 the Government subordinated that lien to a mortgage on the road for an equal amount. The Government is, therefore, a creditor with that lien upon the property for
$27,000,000. The wrong, if wrong there was-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
the Union Pacific Railroad'Company. The Government 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,
simply, 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 — A. Since.
Q. Then you have learned its history from the records?-A. I have.
Q. As the representative of the company, how have you regarded the




CREDIT MOBILIEP.                     437
transactions of the Credit Mlobilier  -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 profits 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 construction of the road. We have waited for such a development of the facts
as might 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. M3y 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 uponl 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 Ifr.
Oakes Ames in connection with its affairs and as a business man e-A.
I know Oalkes Ames very well; I first 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 interest in the affairs of the company.
Q. Are you permitted to state your views of his action or connection
with the company in regard to its ii terests?-A. Certainly; I have no
secrets in that respect.
Q. WThat. is your idea of his character as a business rman in connection
with the affairs of the company' -A. M\r. 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 acquired.
Q. I ask for his general character as a business manl-A. I think
very well of Mr. Ames; I should not regard hinm as the most accurate
man; I should not regard himt 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 CHAIR3A N:
Q. I supposed the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Compatny and of the Credit Mobilier were to a large extent the same persons?-A. That being true might relieve the case of difficultyv, except
as to the non-assenrting 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; but that
was not the case.
Q. I understand it to have been not absolutely the case, but that the
great mass of the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
were also stockholders of the.Credit, 3fobilier i-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 gentlemen, thet the stockholders of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company who did not become stockholders of
the Credit MIobilier sold out their stock.
Q. As you understand it, the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad were all allowed to come in and become stockholders of the Credit
M1obilier?-A. It is so alleged, aud I believe it was as a matter of fact.
Q. And the great mass of them did so? —A. They did.
Q. So that if there was any exorbitant price paid for the construction
of the road, the profit on it was divided substantially among the stockholders of the  JUnion Pacific Railroad Comlpany itself? —A. I am satisfied that was done.  The question I have been discussing was whether
the present stockholders received their stock shorn of that right, and
that is a view of the case which has not, I think, been presented.
Q. Have you exa,mined 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 MIobilier?-A. From. the best inquiries I havle made, I suppose
about 20,000 shares were not, I think 360,0300 shares were issued. iBut
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, 1obilier.
Q. It was one of the conditions that the stockholders should sign tlhe
Oakes Ames contract in order to participate in its benefits?-A. The
condition was that the.dividelnds should only be paid to such stockholders of the Credit Mdobilier as, beinog owners of the stock of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, should give a perpetual 3proxy.
Q. Your first connection with the road was less than a year ago; hlad
you any knowledge at all in reference to the distribution of \the stock of
the Credit kMobilier prior to that time?-A. I had not. 1 ought to say
that when I purchased a large amounIt;  of stock in 1872, 11 knew ther~e
had been a construction company, and that their profits had been large;
precisely how large I did not then and do not now kilow.
Q. Did yout know to whom  that stock went?.-A. I did not. lly first
information was derived daring the la-te political canvass, wlhen it. was
published in the newspmaers.   I found it out as the plublic genierallv (did
as one of the scandals of -the day.
By Mr. Bnooxcs:
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 secoud mo'rtgage becomes duel? AWith friendly relations on the paxrt of the Government to the company,
and not otherwise, because it is in the power of the Governmnent to destroy it, as it is in the power of a State government to destroy a franchise of its own creation-I say, assuming  friendly relations with the
Government, with the present expectations as to lands, and as to coallands particularly;  assuming that the transportation of supplies for the
Goxsernment 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. W Ne are carrying every year an ariyl which guards the
line, the effect of which is to diminish the transportation for the Government, except as to the mail-service, which is increasing.  Under the
circumstances, I think there is a reasonable 1Lope that the second mortgage of the Governmtent is good, with friendly relations, but not otherwise.




CREDIT TMOBILIER.                     439
By Mtr. MCCRARY:
Q. Suppose the statute to be construed as you construe it, not to prohibit the holder of Union Pacific Railroad stock fronl acting as Government director, do you think the same construction would prohibit the,owner of Credit Mobilier stock from acting in that capacity?-A. I did
not Inean to assert positively the opinion that a Government director
was not inhibited from holding Union Pacific Prailroad stock. I think
the policy and purpose of the provision of the law of 1862 might be held
to apply to the law of 1864. That would be a question of construction.
Q. Suppose the lawr of 1864 had expressly stated that a Government
director should not be the holder of Union Pacific Railroad stockl, then
the question is whether the spirit of that would not apply equally to
the Credit Mbobilier?-A.. In other words, as a holder of Credit Miobilier,stock might acquire stock of the Union Pacific Railroad as a dividend
in the event provided for, which event did happen, the position of the
Governmnent director holding Credit Mobilier stock would be attended
with some embarrassument. 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 interested against the Government? -A. Nvot until he acquired Union
Pacific Railroad stock. Of course, as the holder of Credit Ml3obilier
stock,'hte was engaged in a, speculation to make money out of the construction of the, road.
By Mr. TiERIItCiK:
Q(. Do yOU think a Government director could be engaged in a speculation to make money out of the construction of an enterprise in which
hle was Government director, with propriety? —A. Perhaps not; but
referring-, if I imay do so, to hlis position as a member of Congress, the
holder of an interest either in thte Credit iKobilier or the Union Pacific
-ailroad ronmpany mnight practically be disqualified from voting in any
case where a direct interest ought to disqualify him. So that MIr. Ames,
in the distribution of this stock, practically incapacitated his friends
f-oom 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 official duty. Whenever a question arises in which a
member of Congress has an interest diffr1ent from that of the world at
iirge, and peculiar to himself, he will be colipelled to withhold his
vote.
WVASHINGTON, D. C., February 6, 1873.
JAITES  BROOiS? recalled at his own instance, made the following
statement:
I desire to make a correction in my former testimony in regard to my
appointment and commission as a Government director of the Union
Pacific Railroad 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 IRailroad Company, from




440                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
which I find that I acted at Government director, the 2d of January,
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
official record, and I accept it as such.
By the CHAIRMiAN:
Question. It appears, by this extract from the minutes of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, that you acted as 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 Railroad Company.
Q. These minutes also show that on the 11th of March you. acted as
one of the inspectors of election ~ —_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 consistency of my statement appear, that it was December 26, 1867, when
Mr. Neilson received his shares from. Dr. Durant. 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 lIobilier when I became 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 OF THE INTERIOR,
Wa8shintton, 1). C., lMarch 21, 1.868.
" SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith'a commission from the
President of the United States, appointing you to be a Government
director of the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
"' If you accept the appointment, please signify the same, and take;,
subscribe, and return the inclosed oath to this Department.
I, r am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
" 0. H. BROWNINGY,'" Secretary.
" 0[on. JA3IES BROOKS,, cw YTori,'k.
NTEV YORnK, January 2, 1868.
Pursuant to the call of MIr. Oliver Ames, president pro tems., the board
of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company met this day at the
office of the company. Present: 3Messrs. Ames, Alley, Bushnell, Duff,
D)urant, Dexter, Cook, Cisco, Glidden, MecComb, Macy, Ashman, -McKee,
Brooks, and Bardwell.
Pursuant to adjournment the board of directors of the Union Pacific
Railroad Company met this third day of January, 1868. Present:
Messrs. Ames, Alley, Bushnell, Bates, Dillon, Dexter, Durant, Cisco,
Cook, Glidden, MiIcComb, Ashman, McKee, and Brooks.
NEW YoRK, February 6, 1868.
Board met pursuant to call of president. Present: M3essrs. Ames,,




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     441
Alley, Bushnell, Bardwell, Bates, Duff, Dillon, Dexter, Cisco, Glidden,
McComIb, 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 be such committee, and that they
report to this board. Passed.
Extract fro;t the minutes of the board of directors of the Union Pacifit
Railroad Company at a meeting held March 11, 1868.
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 preside at the election of directors at this meeting of stockholders, 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, ~Xiz: Thomas C. D)urant, Oliver Ames, H. S. McComb,
Charles A. Lambard, John Duff, John J. Cisco, C. S. Bushnell, Josiah
Bardwell, John F. Tracy, Sidney Dillon, W. II. Macy, F. G. Dexter,
Benjamin E. Bates, John B. Alley, and Henry C. Crane.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
City and County of New York, 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 minutes of the board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad 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. POTTER,
Notary Public, N. Y. Go.
WVASHINGTON, D. C., February 6, 1873.
AUGUSTUS SCHELL sworn, and examined by Mr. Brooks:
Question. I want to ask you if in 1866, or the- early part of 1867, 1
came to you and desired to interest you and your associates in railroad
matters in the stock of the Credit TMobilier?-Answer. Some time in
1867 or 1868, you called upon me and called my attention to my becoming interested in the Union Pacific Railroad.
Q. What ihakes you think it was in 1868?-A. T 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 yon remlenmber the substance of the conversation that occurred
between us?-A. You called my attention to it as being a very important 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 enterprises 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 Railroad 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? —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?-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. I)o you recollect an,,ything 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 in to any considerable
extent in the market.
By the CI-AIRMAN:
Q. Did you understand from, Mr. Brooks whether he was a stockholder,or not?-A. I did not.
Q. Did you understand that Mr. Brookls was acting' in behalf of this
Credit Mobilier corporation?-A. I understood tlhat he was a friend of.the enterprise.
Q. Did you know at that time that the stock of the company was regarded as very valuable, and was selling' at very much above pa3r? —A.
No, sir; I never had any interest in it, and did not watch it at all.
Q. You knew nothing in relation to the price of the stockl at any
time? —A. _No, sir.
YASHINGTON, D. C., _February 6, 1873.
JAnEs B. BECK, a member of the United States House of Represent~atives from the State of Kentucky, sworn, and examined by M3'r. Brooks:
Question. Having been charged by Mr. McComb with receiving fifty
shares of Credit Mobilier stock for the purpose of bribing or influencing members of Congress, my first inclination was to call the entire one
hundred democratic members on that subject; I thought that would incumber the record too much, and therefore I have called two who have
been in official relations with this Union Pacific IRailroad question, Mr.
Voorhees, a member of the Pacific Railroad Committee, and Mr. Beek, 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
vou at a any time in regard to the Union Pacific Railroad when any matter
-affecting its interest was before Congress for adjudication?-Answer.
When I was summoned a few moments ago to appear before this comamittee, I could not imagine what the purpose was. I have been on
terms of intimacy with Mr. Brooks for several years. WeVe served
together during one Congress upon the Committee on Reconstruction,
and were very intimate, especiallly be6ause 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 relations 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 Railroad in Congress at any time, in any shape or




CREDIT 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 questions involved in relation to it took place in that committee, and my recollection is that, after a full investigation, I, with a majority of the com1mittee, came to the conclusion that the law was in favor of the railroads.
I1 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 Railroads., I know I was ver anxious that tlhe United States should sue tle
companies, and so test the legal question. I had not much faithl in Mr.
Akerman's opinion; I did not think it was sound law; and upon a full
investigation of the subject, the commnittee canme to that conclusion. I
did not want this question to come up on an appropriation bill, and I
preferred that it should be discussed on its own -merits and in connection with no other question. The question was reported on and decided,
in spite orf my protest, when the conference report Nwas adopted, as you
know, and so far as 1-Mr. Brooks was concerned,  I have not the slightest
recollectionl that he ever mentioned the matter to me in any shape or
form.
WASHINGTON, -D. C., Februta-cry 6, 1873.
DANIEL Y 1. VOOtI-IEES, a member of the United States House of
Representatives from Indiana, sworn, and examined by TMr. Brooks:
Question. Were you a member of the Pacific Railroad Committee
during the Forty-first Congress?-Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have questions before you often affecting the interests of
the Union PLacific Railroad and the Central Pacific R1ailroad Companies,
and their various branches?-A. We had; at least I so understood. I
remember more distinctly than anything else the question which arose
in regard t tothe junction between the Union Pacific and the Central
Pacific at or near Ogden, in which there was quite a spirited c ontroverssy 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? —A. I will state to the committee that during that Congress
nly 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 recollection; and he never approached mue or
spoke to me in any way on the subject.
WASHINGTON, D. C., F2ebruary 1, 1T873.
The CHAIRXAN 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 him that the testimony of Mr. ~A4mes 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 CHAIRHrAN said the committee would delay further proceedings
until Mr. Ames's arrival.
Be-examination of OAKES AMES.
MXr. Ames subsequently appeared and was examined as follows:
By the CHAIRMAN:
Question. Have you the original of the memoranda that you produced
before the committee in your former examination?-Answer. 1 have it;
but I understand there is evidence to be put in to impeach my testimony
in relation to Mir. 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 your evidence cannot be considered as complete with only copies of your memoranda before them.
These copies cannot be considered strictly as legal evidence at all. The
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 CItAIRPMAN. You will please send for it. The committee. must be
guided by their own judgment as to the course they should legally
pursfue.
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 committee 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 Mier. Ames to bring the book referred to.)
Q. Have you the originals of any of the others of these memoranda
now with you e?-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. M)r. Clark has the book for!868, which contains 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 I gave you copies or not. I have tried to get the printed testimony in this case. I sent to the Printing-Office twice for it, but was unable 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 Mobilier stock, giving him a discount of 5 per cent., making it 95. There is another entry, which is different from what I supposed when I gave my testimony; I find that Mr. Patterson paid me
$3,000 for Credit MIobilier stock on the 31st of August, 1867. M.y memory when I testified was, that it was jn the December following. That
is whrat there is on this book relating to this matter. I.t is a private




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      445
memorandum-book, and relates to a great many of my private transactions. I desire, therefore, that the committee will retain it in their own
possession and not allow others access to it.
The book referred to was handed to the chairman, who, after examina,tion, read the following entries:
SATURDAY, August 31, 1867.
J. W. Patterson, credit by check for C. M. of A........ $. $3, 00f 00
MAY 4, 1867.
Sold G. BradIford 1-00 C. M. at par.$..10........  $1  000 00
Interest to May 4..........................               61 67
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 any way.
Q. Have you 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 memoranda 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. Axmes, on his examination as to the
entries in the memorandum-book of 1868.
Mr. CLARK. I wish, if the committee will allow me, to ask at whose
instance this memorandum-book was called out in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. At the instance of the committee. I gave Mr. Ames
notice, verbally, to produce the book before he went home for the Christmas holidays, but he seemed to think that copies would answer as well,
and I subsequently gave him written notice to produce the original
memoranda.
Mr. CLARK. 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 matter of the Credit Mobilier we are in' adverse relations and interests.
Mr. Ames said to me 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
have 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
upon 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 menmorandum-book is not evidence per se. It cannot
speak irrespective of him. Produced, examined, and'read, it woulid not




446                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
afford even plri3ma-facie or presumptive evidence of the truth of its entries. But he has produced alleged extracts from it, or certain statements 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
reference to transactions having no relation whatever to the subljectmatter 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 expression of my opinion that you would not be at liberty to institute inquiries in relation to these transactions under the order of the House,
by virtue of which you are empowered.
This being but a mzemorandum made by the witness, (and you may
assume it to have been made contemporaneously,) by which he has refreshed 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 thin k) in corroboration of any statement 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, canll use it for the purpose of impeachment, but not forthe purpose of corroboration.
The book is Mr. Almes's private property, and in respect of its custody,
and in respect of any developments not material to your inquiry, which
might restult from its exhibition, he is protected by law against any unreasonable search. I think no court would require a witness to produce 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 produces it, may refer to it for the purpose of showing that the statement
he has made is not sustained by the memorandcum by which he has refreshed 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, t.he committee cannot require him to
produce these memoranda for the purposes of corroboration without disregarding 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 Mhr. Ames that you can enforce the production of
this book.
But there are considerations connected with this case —aud, 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 incline 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 mayrightfully be connected with these investigations, desires that this memorandum-book lmay 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 MOBILIER.                      447
vise you to produce all that part of it which relates to any such individual, 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 collateral issues rather than upon the main issue. The main question submitted to you for inquiry by the House was, if I mistake not, as to the
ownership of stock in the Credit 5Mobilier 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 prevarication upon the part of gentlemen whose names have been associated
with these transactions.
Now, 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 MIr. 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 associated with the Credit Mobilier transaction he should furnish a sworn
copy of any entry relating to them which may tend to the ascertainment of the real truth. Mr. Ames is here as a witness, and has certainly not lost all his rights because of his being a member of the honorable 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 ought to
withhold from the committee no evidence which bears upon the case of,any one of the gentlemen whose names are connected with these transactions, but that when he goes beyond and exposes through the press,.
or otherwise, his transactions with other parties, who have never had
any relations with Congress, he surrenders rights as a private citizen,,
which, it seems to me, he ohght 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 receivel 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, and that it is very strong competent evidence to
that end..
~Mr. CLARK. Does the committee take the ground that Mir. Ames could
produce this book for the purpose of corroborating his own evidence?
The CHIAInarAN. 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-boo-k, 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. CLARK. The entries made in books kept in the ordinary course of
business would be received as evidence per se, but I think there is no
such rule in regard to a private memorandum.
The CHAIRMAN stated thfat the rule was extended ill 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 producing 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 inll 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 followring:
1868.
TUESDAY, Jfanuary i4th.
Henry Wilson, cr. for cash on act. of C. 3M. of A.....   70 00
I will say that I had several other matters with Mr. Wilson, which
are referred to in this book, and which do not relate'to the Credit
Miobilier at all.
The next entry I find referring to Mr. Wilson is the following:
1868.
_MONDAY, FeebruWary 10th.
For $1,600 bonds.
Paid H. Wilson. ---—...........                        548 00
In Scofield check.....-1.................   1..... 195 33
IU. P. R. R. 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 CHAIRMAN:
Q. Do you remember anything in relation to this entry, except what
appears upon the face of the entry itself? —A. NTo 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 up of three items: Scofield check,
Union Pacific Railroad checkl, 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 — A. No, sir, I cannot remember; I 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




CREDIT 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. Yes, 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? —X.
Yes, sir; under date of March 5, I find an entry of a transaction with
Mr. Henry Wiilson, which refers to a Cedar Rapids bond, and has nothing to do with the Credit Mobilier.
The CH(AIRMAN. You need not read that.
WITNESS. Under date of June 22 I find the following entry:
1868.
MONDAY, June 22.
Hon. Henry Wilson.
By div. from U. P. It..................................... 1, 200
Cash..-............. 223 00
IC. R. & 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 Mir. Wilson?A. f think there is no other.
Q. Have you anything to state in reference to the final settlement of
this transaction with Mr. Wilson different 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, JTanuary 11.
Recd. of Hon. H. L. Dawes.
Cash on acct. of stock in C. 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 s-A. I
presumne so.
Mr. CLARK. Do I understand the committee to claim the right to examine 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?
The CHATRUAN. Certainly. We are not trying a case between anybody. This is a proceeding in rem., if I may so express it. It is more in
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..
mTITNESS. There is the check on the Sergeant-at-Arms given to  Ir.
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 e-A. That is the
29 x




450                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
$1,035 before referred to. The entire entry to which I refer is a statement of the whole transaction as it then stood, as follows:
enry L. Dawe.
by Cash.-....... 
kby ain't due on ud-.            -          195 23
to bond..-......
C. I
U.P* -                      0
Q. Can you state when this entry was made?-A. That was made, I
suppose, previous to the June dividend, as the June dividend does not
appear 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 stockf?-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 lA. Yes sir.
Q. Then this entry says, "' to bond 1,000."-A. That is the bond lie
~paid for.
Q. That is intend ed 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 Railroad stock.
Q. I see it printed at the top 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?-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? -A. Nothing 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 find
with the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Q. Your book shows no entry of that?-A. I have no entry 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 myself 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.
SATUTkDAY, January 2, 1869.
iScoiield.-..... c.6.,..........x........   X   600
Patterson................................x 1, 800
Painter...............,,.., X 1, 800
Wilson.                                                    x.............   1, 200




CREDIT MOBILIER.                         451
Colfax..............................................  x 1, 200
Bingham.. —.............................   x 1g 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 in
one way and some in another.
Q. Is there anything further ill that bookin regard to your dealings
with MIr. Dawes, in reference to these 10 shares of stock — A. No, sir,
I d(o not think there is..Q. Having examined the sevarious entries in your memorandum-book,
have you any alteration to nmake 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?-A. No, sir, none whatever.
Q. Now state the next 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.
THURSDAY, March 5.
Riecd of Schuyler Colfax check balance.-....-.   534 i72
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 parchase of the stockl it left a balance due you of $534.72, which Mr. Colfax
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 in June? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. You put down this list, as you sacy, to show what you were to pay
to each one whose name appears on it -A.' Yes, sir; it shows the parties to whomr  I was responsible for the 60 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. Colfax is the following, which is a general statement,
such as I made out in each case:
Colfax: 
20 shares Credit.  cost-...... -.  27000 00
7 mos. 10 days' inltst,.......-.......'.a.h.............t-..   86 72
2, 086 72
Less 80 pr. ct. bds. at 97                                       55.............5............    5. i.2 00
Paid, March 5                                                   534 72
2Paid, UaPrch 5sk.......................................    534 72
27 000 U. P. stock.
2, 000 C. M. stock.
Q. When was this entry made.-A. It was made previous to June.
It was made after I had received the bond dividend, and shows the
condition of the account after receiving that dividend.




452                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. You made up a statement with each of these individuals and put
it down in your bookl-A. Yes, 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. P. R. Rd.
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...................., 000
7 mos. 10 days" int'st..................................  43 36
1, 043 36
80 pr. et. div. in bonds......................   S80
Less discount of 3 pr. ct.-...................  24 00    776
267 36
10 shares 1, 000 U. P. R. stock, 1, 000.
10 Credit Mobilier stock. 1, 000.
Q. This is a calculation you made tp before you made any of the
entries in this book? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. And b5 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 particular individual? —A. No, 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?-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.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 MOBILIER.                        453
Q. You put that cross or check opposite Mr. Colfax's name when you
made a settlement with him? —A. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. CLARLK suggested that on the next page of the memorandumbook 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? —A. Yes, sir; that is the explanation of it.
Q. This account with Mr. Colfax which I have read is not crossed
off? —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
P7d  S. Colfax........................................  1, 200  00
" James F. Wilson                                          329 00. L. Dawes........................                        600
W Villiam  B. Allison..................................  600
"    G. W. Scofield......................................  600
J. W. Patterson.........................  -    1,800
" John A. Logan........ -..............   329
ilJa lies  A. Garfield..................................  329
" William D. Kelley..                                     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?-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 think 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 WashingtonQ. It says "1 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.
3Mr. CLARIC said that Mr. Ames was of opinion he shouldl not be
compelled to bring forwardT one by one, his corroborations in respect to
each individual. He desired, before producing this other book, to know
what 5Mr. Colfax himself says, so that he might be able to apply the cor



454                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
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. This is 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. DR. R.7"
You made this entry?.' A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think it was made on that day?-A. I think the entry was
made on that day, and I presume the payment was.
Q. What were these certificates of the Union Pacific Railroad?-A.
The trustees of the Oakes Ames contract made a dividend of 75 per
cent. first-mortgage bonds. They did'not have the bonds, and never had
them. This was, I think, in July, 1868. On the January following they
paid the interest on the certificates the same as they would Ihave 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 utp.
Q. The interest on that certificate -was 860.75, 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 f —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 gentlemen's -names, and the amounts they were entitled to, the amount of interest each one was entitled to on these certificates. I (lid 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 a.mount 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 f-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 findc 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 e.-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 wheRa there was no discrepancy of statement.
between them and Mr. Ames.
The CHAIRMAN replied that the comlmittee did not feel absolutely
certain even when Mr. Ames and the parties themselves agreed. They




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       455
wanted all the memoranda Mr. Ames had in regard to these tralnsactions.
Witness next produced the following entry from his memorandumbook:
1868.
WEDNESDAY, January 29.
lecdcl  of Glenni W. Scofield, check on Serglt-of-Arms...... 708 50
10 coupolns, 350 East -..................   350
Less 5 p'r Ct                 -17 50    332 50
17 041 00
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. Scofield for 10 shares
of stock?-A. Yes, sir. I was to get him his stock, and I gave him
my receipt.
Q. SWhat were the 10 coupons referred to? —A. I think, on Cedar
}Rapids bonds which I had sold him before. I am not positive about
that.
Q. You took them as money?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I find on your memorandum-book, right below the entry just given,
the following:
4 Feb'y 1st, 1868.-DelPd to Hon. Glenni W. Scofield certificate
No. 346, for 10 shares of stock on Credit Mobilier, bot. for his account."
That certificate of 1.0 shares was delivered to Mr. Scofield? —A. I guess
it was afterwards; I cannot remember.
Q. Do you think you gave him the certificate at that time?- -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 you did or not? —A. To, sir; but I presume I should not have
made the entry if I had not.
Q. You presume you did give him the certificate? —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 e —A. I think
there is. I find the following:
1868.
SUNDAY, February 9.
Reached Washington from N. Y.
D'I'd Glenni W. Scofield one bond..............-...........      000
10  shares  stock...........................................   17 000
IRec'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. dividend? —A. Yes, sir.




456                     CREDIT AMOBILIER.
Q. Have you any further entry in relation to Mr. Scofieldl —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. Scofield.
By cash.......... -....-....     l 041
On bond -.....-.........         195 33
1< 236 33
Dl'd him one, Bond................. 1000
236 33
1, 000 Credit.
1, 000 U. P. R. R'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. Scofield 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
Rtailroad 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 Railroad
stock out of the transaction?-A. That is my memory. I aim not certain.
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 CIAIRMAN. We do not care anything about the entries relative
to M3[r. 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.
FRIDAY, April 24.
Rec'd of Win. B. Allison.... 271 00
for balance due on stock sold him, 1,000 in Credit Mobilier,
and 1,000 in Union Pacific R. 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 8271 was the balance in payment of the stock, after deducting
the bond dividend — A. Yes, sir.
Q. The ten shares Union Pacific Railroad 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.




CREDIIT MOBILIER.                      457
Q. That $600 was paid by check on the Sergeant-at-Arms?-A. Yes,
sir; and a corresponding entry made in the list of June dividends, which
you have. The general statement is as follows.
Win. B. Allison. X
10 shares Credit 1i......... -          1, 000
Int"st to May...............-.                    46
1, 046
Div. in Bonds 80 pr. ct.
sold at 97-....................    776
Cash to balance-....................     270
1, 000 C. M.      /
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 statement of his account, corresponding with that made out for the others:
James F. Wilson.
10 shares C. M  - - -. -...-..-.... -    1000
7 mos. 10 days..................   43 36
1, 043 36
80 pr. cent. Div. at 97.....................    776
267 36
Int'st to June 20..-...............    3 64
271 00
1 000 U. P.
1, 000 C. M.
Q. That is crossed off, showing that it was settlede?-A. Yes, sir.
This statement left a balance due him of $37?9, for which I gave him a
check on the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Q. Afterward he sold his stock, and there the matter ended so far as
you were concerned?-A. Yes, sir. The next on the list is J. W.
Patterson. I gave you this morning the first entry I had in his case,
from my memorandum-book of 1867. The first I find in this is the following:
1868.
Friday, February 14.
Paid J. W. Patterson, for 2,400$ bonds of Union Pacific  R. 1.
Co., as dividend, less 3 pr. ct..-...-.....................  $2,328
Less interest paid...1................................    105
P'd cash -.......................................... - $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                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Rec'd of J. W. Prson:
Cash and Intel4..     -.                        3, 105 00
s1eed for 3 Bonds....2, 328
5, 433 00
Febly 14, to Cash..........   2, 328
3 1/05 00
3, 000 UI. P. stocl k                                     3    
3, 000 C. M. A.                            X.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 I 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 lMr.
Patterson than you stated befQre? —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 off receipts
and burn them up. The general statement is as follows:._ John A. Bingbhanm.
by Cash                    - -.....-..           2,086 72
Note...................   399 32
to bonds............../   2 (0StockM........<',..... 2, 000 
C of..i-.- ------- 2 000
He took two bonds and paid me the difference at par.
The CIAIRMAN. 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 check for $329. His general statement is as follows:
Wm. D. Kelley.
10 shares C. M. A........................  1 000
7 mos. 10 days' intst st........ n.     4.3 36
1, 043 36
80 p'r c't bond div., at 97........776
267 36
Int'st to June 20.......................      3 64
271 00
1,000 U. P. stock,
1,000 C. 3I.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      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 committee.
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. No, 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 corn....................          $750
Q. Have you anything more to say in reference to the purpose of that
payment than you said before?-A. No, sir.
Q. lNow turn to any entries you'may have in reference to Mr. G0arfield.-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
17 043 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 saly, paid him $329, as the balance of the dividend
due him -?-A. I think I did.
Q. This general statement is not crossed off?-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 cheek 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 number of checks for that amrnount as are called for by the names on this list
for that amount.-A. I am not sure how I ipaid Mr. Garfield; I I)aid
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 MBr. 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; I have had nothing of iMr. Blaine, and
his name does not appear on nmy book at all.
Q. There is one other gentleman whose haine appears here-that of
General Logan; what entry have you in regard to him? —A. I have his
general statement, as follows:
Logan. 
10 shares C. M. A-I    Y....         * i *.         1 000
7 mos. 10 days..............            43 36
1.043 36
SO0 pr. ct. Div. at 97........................       776
267 36
Tut'st to June 20 -..../. e-. - - o *aX    v  o.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 i[obilier, in addition to those you have
named — A. iNs 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, I believe. I
may have failed to give the general statement, for Mr. Henry Wilson.
It is as follows:




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     461
Henry Wilson.
Reci'd of him -..............   1, 000
two bonds/  /
Less 3 pr. cent..\...-..-, /..1............., 552
Cash..................    -   70
2, 622
p'd Cash & Int'st..................   1, 548
1,074
2, 000 Credit.
2, 0100 U. P. Stiock. 
Q. That includes all who were then in Congress with whom you had
dealings in reference to this stock?-A. Yes, 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
in 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. M3r. Garfield might have misunderstood me.
Q. MIr. Garfieldc has told us how he understood it; what the committee
desire to know of you is your understanding of the m atter.-A. I supposed 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 clo 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. iBLACK:
Q. You 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 he is doing it.
Q. Your 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 receipt from Mr. Allison is as follows:
RPeceived 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.'hen 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 youl 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.
3Ir. 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?-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 think 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 presented to the committee after your return?-A. My book-keeper prepared 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 myoffice.
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 returned, 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 January — 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 thinink my son brought it
on his way to New Orleans.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      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. INo, sir.
Q. Where was it? —A. It went back to Easton with Mr. Kennedy,
after being copied.
Q. With George VW. Kennedy 1 —A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he carry it back to Easton?-A. I think he did.
Q. By yourrequest? -A. I do not know about that; 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 inform 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. Kennedy came down to be examined, I can tell you when my son caume. They
came together. I cannot tell you now what day they arrived.
Q. Then the memorandumn 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. Yon 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 you 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 misunderstood your question. They were made here from the booki here.
Q. When did this committee first call upon you to produce these memorandum-books?-A. I do not know.
Q. Can you Inot tell?-A. No, sir; I cannot tell.
The CHAIRIMAN stated that written notice to Mr. Ames was given after
Mr. Kennedy testified before the committee.
Mr. HIALE. That was after verbal notice.
The CHAIR31mAN 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 satistfctory,
and you replied it would. Then Mr. Colfax afterward called for the
books, and you re-ordered them.
The CAIRiANr said the witness must have misunderstood him in that
regard.




464                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
By Mr. HALE:
Q. Have you now on this cross-examination for the first time disclosed to the committee that either of these memorandum-books had
been in Washington during this investigation until since you last returned?-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 statement or not? -A. I do not know that I did.
Q. Do you know whether you did or not — A. I do not know that I
have stated anything about-it.
Mr. CLARK suggested that if there was any material issue upon
which the counsel was endeavoring to show the witness had made contradictory statements in his former evidence, such evidence should be
first read to him.
The CHIAIRMAN said the counsel was entitled to an answTer 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 having 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 ankwer to my question.
WTITNmss. 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 CHAEIRMAN said he understood the witness to have answered substantially 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 anythinlg 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. No, 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. You 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. I did not say from slips
of paper; I said they were made up from this memorandum-book; and
they all show that they were made from this book. These slips of paper
were in 1868.




CREDIT  IOBI3LIER.                    465
Q. Then these slips. of paper were not before you and Mlrt. Kennedy
when you made up the statements that you produced here in 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 memnorandum,
which yoqu produced to the committee. Now, will youL 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 froln which this statement is a copy. —.1.
Well, that is the first it;em.
Q. What I want is the original statement on your bqok handed in
here, from which this copy, as it purports to be, on page 2S8 of the
printed testimony, was taken.
W~ITNESS. I expect the reporter has that copy.
Q. I asked you to point me on this memorandum the original statement, 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 frown items
in the book as memoranda, and I have shown you the first item, whichl
gives the payment of the $534.72.
Q. Where does that appear.?-'-A. Under date of MLlarch 5. The
memorandum  says, "'Received of Schuyler Colfax check' for balance,
$534.72."
Q. Have you read everything that appears there in relation to 3rt.
Colfax?-A. That is the entire entry under that date.
Q. There are no other words, figures, or letters 1 —A. Not there.
Q. I now ask you for the next entry.-A. I do not find here the
entry of the bonds. But 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 in this book.-A. I made up an account which shows tha't
$534.72 was the balance due me for $2,000 of Credit Mlobilier stock.
Q. That is not an answer to my question.-A. This sumn  makes up
the amount from the data and figures I have shown. MIr. Colfax does
not dispute that he gave me the balance on his account, does he?
The CHAIRAN. The Chair understands that this is am account which
Mr. Ames made up for Mr. Colfax.
Mr. HlALE. If the chairman will turn to page 323 of ths pjrinted testimony, lie 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 mne, is an exact
copy of your private memorandum-book?-A. I think so.
"' Q. Do 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 youn memorandumn-book, or on any memorandum-book that you have produced,
the original entry from which this statement on page 288 is a copy f —A.
That is a copy of the transaction, sir. I made up that statement -from
these items in this book. I amz not a book-keeper, but I understand
that to be a correct statement.
By the CHI-RIUMAN:
Q. Do you mean to say that in your books the statelent which is
here printed is set cdown in the fornm in which it is here, and that you
30 X




466                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
copied it fronm any of the books in that form? —A. No, sir; I did nlot
have on ainy of my memorandum-books an account drawn off in that
way. This statement was prepared in that way to show what I have
paid to and received from Mir. Colfax.
By IMr. HALE:
Q. Then, instead of being a copy of an original entry, it is a statenlent
of account made up by yourself derived from various entries and various sources? -A. The original entries are in the memorandumn-book..\Mr. Colfax would not have given me the $534.72 unlessIMr. HALE. I do not want that to go in as a part of my cross-examination. The witness is a man of few words I know, but they come in
sometimes at improper places.
IWITNESS. That is very probable.
Q. In regard to the statements which you produced of your transactions with somle of these other gentlemen, as, for instance, in MIr. Garfield'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 different transactions, occurring on different
dates; some were from books, a-nd some from other memoranda.
Q. Pray tell nmle what other memoranda they were from.-A. I made
memoranda of all these transactions, and handed them to these parties'
at different times. I made one for Mr. Colfax whesn he paid ine the
Ibalance of $534.72.
Q. Do you meani that these statemlents were made up floenl mnemoranda
which you had delivered to the parties to be used before?.-A., No; they
were made up friom memoranda that I had.
Q, WThere are a1 these memoranda? —L. I do not know where they
Q. Do youi  mean the memoranda fromn  which iMr. Kennedy made
the stateYlent?-A. Yes, sir; from the books and from the facts where I.1
hadl delivered to?arties bonds, and the parties admitted it.
Q(. Did Mr. Kennedy make that statement from any other written documents than from the books?-A. iVe had written documents showing~that the papers were received and that the bonds were received.
Q. I am now inquiring of you of the statemlents Mr. Kennedy made
tup and. which you presented here; what did he make them from  — A.
I think mostly from this book.
Q. W5lat else? —A. We had these statements here to Mnake them;from.
Q. Did you have any papers besides the book to make them firom?/A. I think not.
Q. Does the book contain all the items embraced in these statements,
or were they made in part from inemory — A. I think this includes all
the items.
Q. Were these statements made up in part 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 3Mr. Hale] of the various items making up Mr. Kelley's account.
Q. Is that the whole of the e'ntry? —A. That is the whole of it.
Q. And (ldo you say that the statement made by MIr. Kennedy, which
is printed here, is a correct tranlscript of that entry  - A. It is correct,
is it, not?




CREDIT MOBILEIIR.                      467
Q. Take this iteml of 817 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 memorandumbook.-A. There is nothing on the debit side of this entry.
Q(. This statement contains two items on the debit side and one, on
tile credit side, showing a balance of $271. Where are the other entries
that make up the statement printed on1 page 298 —A. The other entries
are the 80 per cent. bond dividend collected for his account, amounting
to $776,
Q. I 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 lhe received $600.
Q. Is there any entry in your memorandcun -book, under date of Jane
19, " To cash, $329? —.A. No, sir.
Q. That is not in the memoranda um-book?-A. No.
Q. Is there any entry on your memorand-uml-book of D'Dividend col-.lected for yonr accuntt, $600, June 17.-M-A. Yes, sir; here it is.
Q. That is on the list you describe? —A. It is onl the list of parties
who were entitled to dividends.
Q. Is thl-at the only place where it appears in your book?-A. No, sir.
Q. Where else? —A. Upon tis otlher list, under date of June 21.
Q. In both these cases the nlemorandmni was nmade by you of anmounts
due the parties, and not amlounts you hiad p)aid them?-A. They were
paid.
Q. I (id not ask you that. I ask you what the entry was intended to
indicate f —A. The entry showed that the parties were entitled to receive
dividends, an ld I paid them the dividends.
Q. 1 did not ask you that.
WITNESS. VWhat do you ask?f
Q. I will now ask youL another question. Turn to the entry in this
printed boolk, of the payment of $329 to 3Mr. Kelley, and show me where
you find that entry?-A. Not on this book; the Sergeanatat-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 f-A.. say it
is, if it is crossed off. It was an entry to be paid, and when it was paid
it was crossed off.
Q. Now I want to ask 1Mr. Ames, who comes here and says lie presents to thie committee a statement which is a transcript of his book, to
point me the place on his book where that entry is made.
WITTNESS. I have shown yoq where.
The CumAItnrN stated that the committee had gone over all these
matteris until they understood them very thoroughly; 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.
JMr. 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 mnade.
The Ci-AAIRmAN 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 furither memoranda, lie might proceed with his examuinmation.




468                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
But if the object was sinmply to prove inconsistencly of statements, the
committee had all the means which any further examination would be
likely to elicit.
Mir. HALE said that if the commllittee were satisfied IMr. Ames was
telling two widely different stories, he had no desire to proceed further.
Tlhe CI-AIAmMAN said the counsel was not authorized to draw any conclusions on that subject. His object in interrupting him was to save
time.
Q. Please show me rwhere the entry is on your memorandum-book of
"By dividends for your account, six hundred dollars 1i"-A. I collected
the dividend.
Q. Where is the entry on your meinoraindunm'-boolk slowing it?-A. I
do not know much about boo.k-keeping, but t am not so stupid that I
cannot make such a calculation as will show that 271 from 600 will leave
329. I can explain that, as big a fool as I amr, and if you will allow me
I will do so. Mr. Ktelley owed $271. Then he was entitled to a dividend of $600. Taking 271 from 600 left a balance of 329 due, which I
paid. That, I think2 is a plain statement of book-keeping.
Q. Very lifkely thxat is so; but what I atsk you for' is to state -where
you find such an entry on that book I?-A. Yes; I fitd that he was entitled to $329, the balance due him on the &600 dividend after deducting $271 which he owed.
The C:mIAnTmU AN said the conmmittee had traveled all over this ground
until they were entirely familiar with it, and that the counsel was apparently rot so fa1miliar with it, or he would not desire to go over it again.
Mlr. HALE said he -would not dispute that staterment, although inclined
to think that appearances did not fully warrant, it. He would,' however,
proceetd no further in tahis iine of examination.
Q. Did you take any receipt, voucher, or acktnowledgment from  ir.
Colfax in payment of the $1,200 vwhich you stated you gave him in
June -.As. I (lo not think I did. I gave hinm a chek an(l he drew the
money.
Q. The last part of your answer is not responsive to my question.A. It is trtie, n:evertheless.
Q. Have you stated within the last monthl repeatedly to different persons in the city of Washinogton that you had such a receipt from  Mr.
ColfBx?-A..No, sir; I have not.
Q. Have you not sta ted to different personas that you were very sure
you had such a receipt? A —A. I do not think I have. I know I have not.
I did not suppose I wsas entitled to a receipt for the $i,200 belonging to
1Mr. Colfax, as a dividend  on his stock. He paid me for the stock, and
Wvhy should I take areceipt from him for his own money?
Q. Did you not state to John B. Alley that you had such a receipt I
-A. No, sir.
Q. Did you not sttate 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 question? I say I did not to anybody.
Q. You. have not said that to Judge Nibiack, Judge Polandl or any
member of this committee.-A. I do'not think. I have. I must hlave
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 payirment after the evidence that has been presented.
Q. 2The pa yment you have now testified to of $60.75, made on the 22d
of January, 1869 -did you take any voucher or receipt fbr that?-A.




CREDIT MOBILIERZ.                     469
To, sir; it was his money. It was a dividend on a certificate for bonds
which I held for him, and which belonged to him.
Q. You do not think you were entitled to a receipt?-A. No, sir.
Q. You took a receipt from some gentlemen to whom  you paid
molley? —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. Patterson and none fromn Mr. Colfax?-A. No; I did not knowv that I had Mr.
Patterson's receipts whern 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. Colfatx?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 himn? A. I do not know.
Q. When did you give it to him?-A. Probably at the time; the date
of the check will show.
* Q. Can you state when from mnemoVry?-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 circumstance.
Q. Can you state all the circumstances?-A. NTo.
Q. Do you mean to say you can remember a fact as occurring and
not remem ber any circumstance or incident connected with that fact?A. Sometimes I could. This was simply t;he fact of giving him a check.
iHe 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. I did.
Q. That you knowl?-A. There has never been any person between
us. W~hat we haive done we lhave done ourselves in person. There were
no go-betweens.
Q. How long has your miemor been so positive on that sut)ect? —A.'There are some things I can remember positively.
Q. How long has your memory been positive in regard to this?-A.
Ever since I gave him the check.
Q. You have had no lapse of memory in regard to that f —A. No, sir;
and I gave a check to all the rest of them, too.
Q.Q  On the 17th day of December, when you testified before this comnmittee, you produced a written statement and read it to the cornmittee,
in which, on page 20, appear these words: ";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 I have never transferred to him, nor can I remember having
paid to him  any dividends."  Was that a written statement carefully
prepared and brought in by you before this committee, as your evidence?-A. Yes, sir. He cannot sa-y 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 in December without
any memoranda, or anything to refriesh my memory with. It relates to
transactions which occurred four or five years ago, of very little consequence, as I then considered it, and(, with the immense amount of business I have had on hand, it would not be strange that all these details
would not at the moment be very clear in mLy mind. I made up the
statement to the best of my recollection then.
Q. On page 23 the chairrmnan  put to you this question: "' Is the com



470                     CRIEDIT MOBILIER.
mittge to understand that you put this in as your testiliiony, and swear
to the truth of it?" To which the answer given is,   Yes, sir."l  That
is true?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, then, did you, when that paper was prepared, a.nd whien it
was read by you 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
AIr. Colfax?-A. I supposed I had paid him  dividends. I could not
remember without data things that took place four or five years ago.
AMy impression was, as I stated in that testimony, that I had paid him
dividends.
Q. Did you remember that you had l)aid 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 lied
Mir. CLARKE submitted to the committee, in justice to the witnless, that
the question propounded by counsel was not a respectful one.
MBr. HALE said, although the question might be a little more polite,
he thought the question was a proper one.
Mlr., ~MEIrRcIC remarked that, to do justice to the witnless, his whole
statelnent should be presented to him. In the same examination, on
page 26, in answer to the question, " Do you know whether he has received any dividends on it?." the witness answers, " It is my impression
that he has; but I am not certaitl."
1Mr. 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 formn: Did you intend to speak the truth or not?-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 answer nyl
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 f-A. I should have remlembered it at any time, upon
looking at- my memoranda,.
Q. My question is this: Do Tyou now say that you did remember wheM
you testified before?-A. I said it was my impression when I testifed.
The answer I gave in my first examination was right enough. I intenled to make it as faivorable as I could to Mor. Colfax, but when I
heard it was said they intended to break me dlown I could not do otherwise than state everything.
Q. Do you now say that whe1 you' testified before, from this prepared!
statement, that you knew that you had given him dividends?,-A. I
stated in that examination that I presumed I had given him dividends,
did I not? 
Q. You will please answer my question.
WITNESS. I -said so, did I not -?
The CHIAIRmIAN remarked that it was admitted in 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.
3Br'. HALE. Is that true, that the statement given as your testimony
was prepared by your counsel, or by yourself? —A. Mr. MacMurtrie prepared it.
Q. Was it prepared from your dictation  — A  P'artly.




CREDIT M0nOILIER.                       47 
The C:irAIR-\IAN said that'ouarse of inquiry need lnot be purs-uled.
The witness was cautioned that no part of the statement wonld be
accepted as testinmony unless its truth was sworn to by him.
Q. Is there any reason -why -you remember giving -this cheek to ir.
Colfax, antd 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 I know that I paid these amounts.
Q. I want to call your attention to page. 26, to this testitmony given
by you:
"Q (. Did you pay him the dividends yourself? i-A. I cannot recollect.
" Q. If this stock stood in your name o.n the books, the dividends
would have been paid to you, I suppose' — A. Tlhat would be a inatural
consequence.' (Q. And can you recollect, do you recollect, whethe'r you paid dividends to Mlr. Colfax?-A. No, sir; I do not recollect; it, is my impression that I did."' Q. Is that statement true?-A. That was my impression.
Q. Do you now modifyS 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. You do now modify these,answers?A. Yes.
Q. In testifyinog il T Mr. Garfield's case you say you may have drawn
the money on the check and paid him; is not that al uswer equally applicable to the case of Mr. Colfax?-A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?-A. I put iMr. Colfax's initials in tlhe chekl, while 1
put no initials into -Mr. Garfield's check, and I may lhave drawn the
money inyself.
Q. Do you samy thilt if you put any initials before the words   Gor
bearer" into a check, that; isevidence that you gave hlin the check, and
that he drew the money on it?-A. I am satisfied that I gave hiam the
check anSy way, because it belonged to hium.
Q. Did not lir. Garfield's check belong to himn —. MTr. Garfield ha(d
not paid for his stock. He was entitled to $329 balance; but Mr. Colfax had paid for his stock, and 1 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 M{r. Garfied?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 ine to answer; if it were I should
answer it very frankly. Do you say that you have never presented to
the Serg'eant-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?-A. I do nbt 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 cheeks on the Sergeantat-Arms within the last ten years, arnd I cannot refmember how I h have
drawn every checrk.
Q. On the 29th day of December, in this rooim, as reported on pa-ge
353 of the printed testiimony, is the following:';Q). T1-ere is arrother check upon the Sergeant-at —Arins of the same
date, June 227 1868: iPay O. A. or bearer, $329, and charge to my
account. Oales Ames.' That seenms to have, been paid to somebody
andl tlaken up by the Sergeanlt-at-Arms. These initials are your own?A. Yes, sir.




472                     CREDIT MOBILiER.
"Q. Do you know who had the benefit of that check?-A. I cannot
tell you.
"'Q. Do you thinrk you received the money on it yourself? —A. I have
no idea. I may have drawn the money and handed it to another per-,son. It ras paid on that transaction. It may have been paid to Mir.
0Garfleld. There were several sumns 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. Il have no recollection 6f drawing any of them myself.
Q. That is your answer?-A. Yes, it is. I have no recollection of
6drawing any one of them. But I could not have drawn the money on
oine of those containing the initials without remembering it. I do not
think I drew anly of them mlyself.
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 Mfr. Colfax's initials into the $1,200 check if I had
been going to draw the money mnyself.
Q. Do you remember positively that you gave BIr. Colfax a statement
showin:  the condition of his accountt?-A. I gave him  one, or showed
him one. I exhibited. one to him; I am sure of thnat.
Q. Th at 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 ma)e, or alsk mne to pay
you that -A. That, I cannot tell you. I suppose I handed you a statemelnt showing the balance due, and that you gave inme the check.
D: Q. Do you swear that you did hand me a statenment.-A. No; I will
-not swOear to it."
A.  Weli I exhibited one to himrn if I ldid not give him one; and he
gave me a check for the balance. It is not very likely he would have
gi ven me a check for $534.72 without knowing  what it wasT for. I do
not think lhe was as green as that.
Q. Again, on page 285:;~ You do not think you told me that, do you?Ao I do not know whether I did; I suppose I gave him a statement." —
A. Ve!l4 I suppose I did.
Q. Do you now modify that answer? —A. No; I think I did give him
a statnemnt.
Q. Do you mneani 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 meatn to say you remember positively that you gaver himone, or showed him one? —A. I gave him one, or showed him one; there
Is lio doubt about that; does anybody question that fact f
Q.' Now, then, on page 327, while Mr. Colfax was under examination,
you aslied him this question:
"'Yon had more confidence in my statements then than you have
now.  I ask you if I did not nmake a statement to you at that time, giving you a balance of 8534.72, showing you the amount of your $2,000
Cretlit Mfobilier stock, with interest up to that date, giving you credit
on the proceeds of 80 per cent. in bonds, and did you not give nme a
draft on the Sergeant-at-Arms for $534.72 to mlake up that balanlce; do
yoil deny that?-A. I deny that.
M lMr. AUuES. I am sorry for it.
1 The ViV TT'NESS.  oul gave me a slip of paper with the,l:nount of the




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      473
balance, $534.72, on it, and told me there were some dividends which
had not been a(djjusted.'T4 The CHIAIRIAN, (to BMr. Ames:)
"Do you wish to propound any more questions to 3fr. Colfax?
"4 Mr. AMES. If lhe denies that I mnade him this statement, I do not want
*to ask him aly other question."
These rerarks made to you by Mr. Colfiax were based on your former
testimony that you supposed you had givenr 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. Now go back to page 4 of this testimony, on which appears your
letter to Mr. 1McComb, in which1 you say, "I have assigned as far as I
have gone to 4 from M1ass., 1 fionl N. H., 1 Ielaware, 1 Tenln., 1 Ohio, 2
Penn., i Ind., 1  Maine, & I have 3 to place, which1  I 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 
The CHAIBRMAN stated that all this matter had been gone over thoroughly, and the committee understood whalt M'Ir. Ames's explanation of
that letter was.
Mr. HALE desired an answer to this question, for the purpose of showingr that it was a falsification on the part of the wittness; that whven he
stated he had plaLced stock -with. certain persons  designated,  his own
testimony before this colmmittee proved that he had never transferred
stock to them or to several of them.
The CHAIRIMAN said tnh committee had determined they had all the
light they were likely to get upon that subjects and declined to allow the
counsel to make further inqaLriles iin regard to it.
Q. On page 40 appears a list of d(ividend(s declared by the Credit iMobilier, numbering twelve in all, which you say you think are'correet, except as to the first three, which were not dividends.'T0o what (lividends
do you claim Mr. Colfax to be entitled?-A. He was entialed 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 per centt. in Union Pacific Itailroad
stock. Then he was entitled to 75 per cent. first-mortgage bonds, which
were never receivedl, but for which a certificate was given, and I paid
the interest on that certificate to Mir. Colfax.  He was entitled to his
interest on that $1,500 of bondsi and I paid it to him. Then he was entitled to 100 per cent. Union Pacific IRailroad 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 Railroad Company stock, in his dividend declared December 19, 1868.
Q. W\as 3ir. Colfax entitled to all these dividends?. —A. Yes, he was,
and is, as far as he has not received them. That is my imupression.
Q. Are you sure the 75 per cent. bond dividend, to which you refer, is
an error as printed( in this testimony l-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. Colfix  — A. None, except
those I have mentioned.  I g'ave him the stock when he made his first
payment;   mean the 100 per cent. Union Pacific tRailroad stock.  At
least that is my impression.  His recollection is probably better than
mille as to thalt.
Q. You h1Lave no recollection of paying him  an.fy dividendis except




474                     CREDIT MOIBILIER.
the three you ha.ve mentioned? —A. No, sir;   ihave paid no others
excepting the 80 per cent. bond dividend, the 100 per cent. Union
Pacific Railroad stock, a-nd the 60 per ceint. in cash.
Q. On the 75 per cent. first-mortgatge-bond dividend you paid himi the
interest in January t?-A. I collected. the interest in New York, and paid
it over to him. That is my recollection.
Q. Where did you pay him- that $`60 and oldd cents?-A. Here in
Wa-shington.
Q. By checlk?-A. No; inm mloney.
Q. Can you not tell the place?-A. No.
Q.'Nor any circumstances connected with it? —A. Only this entry on
my book. I should not hlave charged IMr. Colftx with the money if I
had not let him have it.
Q. Do you mean to say that you. remember it as you htave it on your
book?-A. I[ do not mean to say anything of the sort.
Q. Then you have no recollection of it? —A. I did not have un;til T
saw it on the books.
Q. Have you now any recollection of it'-A. Not except that I know
I paid it, as I entered it on -the books as paid. Do you sup)pose I wouldl
cheat Mr. Colfax ont of $60?
Q. You say you do remrember paying these $60 to Mr. Colfax -'.-A. I
cannot state the circumstance. I found the entry on my book.
Q. Now, will you showme the entry on your book of $6(0.75?,-A. Yes;
you shall have all the entries.  -ere it is:; Paid Schuyler Colfax $60.75
for interest on 1,50() certificates of U. P. IR. lRt."
Q. That is all your knowledge in relation to it?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. You testified on your former exalination that you had no recollection of paying him any imoney on account of these dividends except
$1,200 -.A. Excepting the $1,2(00;   did not remember this interest
then.
Q. And do not remember it now?-A. No; except that I Ilave 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 M3r. 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 anyithing firom him except that1 time. He paid
me for the balance of the stock, and I paid him a cash dividend." r That
is your testimony, is it?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever given him any information that he wvas entitled to
these dividends?-A. I do not Lnow. I thillnk I must have. This suit
of McComb-was brought against the company, and I lhave been holding
these dividends until the result of that suit.
Q. You have no knowledge of giving him 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 lhe paid me the $534.
Q. I now call your attention again to page 35:
" Q. D)id you pay them a dividend declared June 17, 1868, of 6) per
cent., (cash currency, and the samne 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 fo-'r 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 digd
pay them the cash dividend.
Q. Again on the samle pa.ge I read as follows:




CREDI''T MIOBLIER.                   475' Q. The samnle question is ask.ed you in reference to a dividend decl-ared September 3, 1868, of 100 per cent. Union Pacific Itailroad stock7
and the same day 75 per cent. first-nmortgage bonds Union P.acific Itailroad Company? — A. It is my impression that I did. I do not recollect.
It depended on the conditions on which they- took the stock. Some gave
up their stock, and some (lid 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 kiiow I did
pay them to Mr. Patterson and to James F. WTilson, and several others.
Some of them I have not settled withll, nd 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  -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 beinggiven
up; at least I do not think I did. I have no recollection of it.
Q. On1 page 20 of your former testimony did not you say in regard to
Mr. Colfax that at the next session he said to you something about that
thing being off, when lihe came on here?-A. There were a good many
people, when this nmatter 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. Colfix. 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 recollection differedc fromn theirs I would rather lean to their opinions, supposing they might be right instead of mIyself  I had no recollection of
Mr. Colfatx sayingI anything about it being off until after I canme back
this winter.
Q. You state that you have no recollection of TMr. Colfax saying anything about being off until this investigation commenced t-A. N o, sir.
Q. Did you in your former testimony state that Mr. Colfax said something to you about 8500 you owed him in 1870 or 1871? —A. No, sir  I
didl not say anything about any $500 I owed him in 1.870 or 1871, or ever,
to my 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, L No, sir; I supposed I had to
pay the $500. I did not know who had the certificate, you or I.?7 Do
you modify that answer now? —A. Well, sir, I do not know. I do not
recollect hearing Mr. Colfax askl the question. Mr. Colfax speaks very
rapid(ly 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 rnot understand 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. I did not pay any 5O00 bacML and I do not remember the question
he asked at all.




476                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Again, on page 280 there is this question by'the chairman of the
committee: "' 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 ren.ark of that- sort to me.'"Q. Will you state what was the whole conversation?-A. I cannot remember that all; he matre some such statement that hie was sorry
for my misfortune, or something like that.
"Q. How late was thatf-A. That was about two years agoabout, 1871."7
Q. Did you fully understand these questions when they were put to
you.-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 the questions, and when he asked me the date of it I said it
was about two years ago; that was 1ll right.
Q. Do you modify your answer in any respect — A. I do not, except
thlat 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 exarmine 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 inme about mny misfortunes, which I said was about two years ago; that answer is correct;
I do not know that he ever offered to pay mle 500.
Q. Did you understand the question of the chairman when he asked,
"44W'hat do you say in reference to that statement about his making a
present to you of $500, saying you might keep the $500 he paid you?"
Is your answer correctly reported? —A. The answer given is, "1 EHfe 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 you by the cha.irmanL,'"How
late was that," to which you answered'"Th~at was about two years
ago-about 1871 " —A. AIy understandingl was that it was about the
time of my misfortune —about'twvo years ago. That is the way I understood the question, and it is the way I understa.nd it now. The question
refers to my misfortune, and my answer that it was about two years ago
is correct.
Q. Now turI back to 3Mr. Colfax's statement rwhven lie testified that
this conversation did take place in 1870 or'71, which statement you
heard. Take that with the question first put to you by the chairman"Did you. hear IMr. Colfax's statement when he was before the committee the other day," to which you replied, "I did," and the question immediately 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? 7  A. That is the statement he made here
the other day in his testimony before the committee.
Q. And that statement you 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 men,' is correct?-A-. Yes; that
was this wilnter.
Q. Then, in answer to that question, you now say that you understood
it to refer to a conversation with Mir. Colfax this winter-f-A. No; I did
not say any such thillng.   say that I do not recollect hearing him say
s,                               - im. say~/1~1  V~IVV,~LVI'~lb LI  l~




CREDIT MOBILIEi.                      47 7
anything ablout the $500 I owed him until this winter; but I said that
mny misfortunes, about which he inquired, went back to 1870 or 1871.
Mr. HALE. I will simply ask the attention of the committee to the
statement of 1Mr. Colfax on this subject, on page 82. He says, " The
next year, or the year after, Mr. Ames suspended payment, in consequence, as was said, of financial involvements connected with the
Pacific Railroad, and his creditors gave him an extension on his liabilities. But regretting his failure and its cause, I voluntarily told him
to dismiss from his mind the small amount of money between Als."
Q. Will you please turn now to the entry in Syour private memoranduml-book of the payment of $1,200 to VMr. Colfax.? —A. Yes, sir. HIere
are the three entries I have already placed in evidence.
IMr'. HALE then inquired of M4r. Dillon, book-keeper for the Sergeantat-Arms, who at his request had brought the books of his office for 1868,
what was the mneaning of the letter' "C" placed in the ledger account
of two checks, one dated May 15, and the other May 23.
Mir. DILLON replied that the entry meant cash, and that where the
letter was inserted inl the ledger account thie check was-usually payable
to self.
FEBrUARiY 13, 1873.
Mr. Ames appeared before the committee and asked leave to make
the f'ollowing explanuation, wNhich was allowed to be made:
Wherever in my testimnony I have used the words " dividends of or
to the Credit MIobilier," I mean tile dividends nmade to the parties interested in the Oakes Ames contract, viz, the trustees to whom it was
assigned, and the persons who in writing made themselves liable upon
the Olakes Ames contract.
WASHIINGTON, 1). C., Febrtary 11, 1873.
OSES Es DILLON recalled and examined byv ir. Hale.
Question. Have you any recollection,-distinct or indistinct, as to how
you paid this $1,200 check, having the initials S. C. written in it?Answer. When I was before the committee the other clay, I said I had
no recollection, although I had an impression. I supposed an impression would not be evidence. I lhad a very positive impression as to
how that and several of the other checks out of this ten-thousand-dollar deposit were paid-that they were paid to Mr. Ames.
Q. Is that your impression now as to this $1,200 check? —A. It is
my impression now. Still I 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? —A. Yes, sir; I think 1. paid him two $500 bills
and two $100 bills. That was my impression when I was before the
committee the other day; and I will state that, within the last thirty
hoursI, I asked MAr. Ames if he did not think I paid the check to him;
and he replied he thought it very likely.
By the ChAIRBAN:
Q. Do you think that you recollect that you paid that particular
$1,200 check to Mr. Ames? —A. Not with sufficient distinctness to say
that I recollect it. It is my impression,. A man has a right to htve
an impression without being able to recollect distinctly. MIy recollection does not go that far.




478                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
Q. Do you think you remember that you paid that to Mr. Ames?A. I cannot say as ani 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' —A. You may call it
so; I would not make oath to it, because it is too far off to testify to distinctly.
Q. You mean the committee to understand that it is your recollection
that you' Iaid 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 klnow how to put my answer into better
language; it is my impression.
Q. I do Inot know how a man can know anythilg of a past transaction except by recollection; and what I want to get at is rwhether it is
your recollection, whether you remember that, it was so?, —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 iemory?-A.
Of course you must attribute it to memory, and nothing else.
Q. Then you wish the committee to understand that you remlember
you paid that $1,200 to Mr. Amnes? —A. Not with sufficient distinctness
to swear to. I say a8 gain, that that is my impression, and I have no
doubt in my own mind abou-t it.
Q. Is your recollection sufficiently distinctlu to enable you to say that
you remetmber having paid it to -Mtr. Ames himself [-A. I think I paid
it to him.
Q. YOI say yo think you paiid other checks to MN[r. 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 knlow that I could naime any except this larger one.. Is there any circumlstance in your memory by which you can fasten
upon the fact that this $17200 check was paid to Mr. Ames? —A. No,
sir; onllly as I have stated it as mny impression.
Q. Do you nowremember it? Does your memllory go back to the paymnent of that   1,200 to anybody? —A. Only to the extent I have stated.
I thinkl I paid it to Mr. Ames; and nmy impression that I did is very
strong.
Q. W5~as the circumstance recalled to your memory on seeing' the
check payable to the order of S. C. or bearer — A. That was in my
menmory when the check was' first produced; when Mr. Ames first asked
to see it; and I so stated to Mr. Ordwray; but when I was brought before the committee under the sanctity of an oathl I could not say positively that I had done it.
Q. These checks were paid four orfive years ago, and have 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. C. or bearer?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. l)id it occurn to your memory then that you had paid it to anybody?,-A. It occurred to me thlat I had paid it to lMr. Ames himself.
Q. Do. you remember now that you ever saw that check before? —A.
Not to give legal evidence, perhaps, that I recollect it.; that is my impression.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                       479
Q. Do you remember the circumstance of a cheelc  being presented
by anybody payable to S. C.?- A. No, sir; I could not recollect the circumstance that it was payable to S. C. After inquiries were madle
about it miy mind was led to the idea that I had paid that check for
$81200 to Mr. Ames himself, without remembering that S. C. or any
other initials were in it. I had no doubt about it in my own mind.
Q. Is there any  circumstance which connects it with any other transaction in your mind-w-hich fastens the fact upon your mind? —A. To,
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 oni my
mind at the time. I could. not account for it in any other way than
that.  I supposed iMr. Ames had deposited this money to pay it
out to persons entitled to it. Several checks were payable to individuals who indorsed them; the others I think he got himself —most of
them.
Q. There were several checks given by tMr. Ames piayauble to some
person by nanme;  do you think all these persons drew the sums themselves?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. 1Have you Jany memlory whether they did or not — A. NTo, sir I
presume they did.
Q. You judge of that froml what they would be likely to do in the
ordinary course of business' —A. Yes, sir; I judge of it fromn the ordinary course of business.
Q. There is a cheek pasyable to 0. A. or bearer;'have you any recollection of that'?-A. r]hat was paid to himself.
Q.  H-lave you any memory tihat it was, or do you judge of that by the
fornm in which the chleck is drawn? —A. No; I have no distinct imemory
abont it. I ha-ve no doubt myself that I paid that to MIr. Amlaes.
Q. IHave you any other reason for your belief that you did, except
that it is payable to 0. A. or bearer?-A. 1 o, sir.
Q. -Iave you any other reason whatever for supposing  you paid i.t. to
him than that? —A. No, sir.
Q. There is another, payable to'V. 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 checks payable to initials to Mr. Amres.
Q. Have yot any memory about that? —i. >No. sir; no distinct
memory.
Q. HEave you any memory at all?-A. Yes; I tllink I have a very
good one, generally.
Q. Whatever a man knows about a transaction, he 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 tlhat subject. What we want to know is, how firm your
memory is in this regard. —A. W~ell, sir, I would not -swear that Ii paid
it to $Mr. Amies, or to iMr. anybody else. 1 can only repeat a.gain, that it
is my ilmpression I did. I cannot state that I recollect it positively.
Q. Do you mean to say that you have no recollection about it l-A.
Yes, sir; I have.
B35y M'r. HALE:
Q. Do you mean to say that you have a recollection, but that it is not




480                     CREDIT MIOBILIER.
a positive recollection upon the subject? —A. That is it precisely; that
is what I do mean to say.
Q. Youuse the word' impression" to denote an imnperfect recollectionl:?
-A. That is it; not to be too positive about it.
By the CIAIrt'M.AN:
Q. In this account of MIr. Amnes, on the 29th June, there is an item
of $1,800?-A. That was payable to Mr. Patterson, was it not? 
The CHI-AIRMAN. Your ledger does not say.
WITNIESS. It says J. W. P., does it not?
The, CHAIRMAN. NO; it does not say anything.
W~ITNESS, [after examinning the journal of the Sergealnt-at-Ai ms 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 Sergeant-at-Armls payable to him, as I see by the original entry.
Q. Do you remember what kind of imoney you paid him in? —A. No,
sir.
Q. Have you no implression on that subject'?-A. No, sir; I do not
think I have.
Q. You seem to have some idea of the denomrination 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. YWas there anything peculiar to Mr. Ames about that?-A. I do
not know. He always drew notes of large denominations.
By Mir. AAMES:
Q. Did I not get draf'ts whhen I wanted large a:OUt ts?-A. -You generally did.
Q. Didi you ever know Ime to take a large amount in bills?-A. Yes,
sir, I have; particularly when you were purchasing iron down about
Alexandria.
By the CH-AIRMAN:
Q. Under date of June 29 there is an entry 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 thousancd-dollar note if he got it
himself.
Q. What I want to ascertain is, how you have the impression that
Mr. Ames drew the. 81,200 in two $50(}0 notes and two $100 notes; now
do you remember any such thing? —A. I have au 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 anly other reason except that he Iusually got large
bills — A. No, sir.
By M-Vr. B~ANkTS:
Q. At what time was this purchase of iron? —A. After the war he
was pulrchasing iron, I Ibelieve; I do not know anything about his business; I only heard so.
By Mr. AMIES:
Q. This check of June 29, of $1,0(10, was given on the Sergeant-atArms to Eldridge & Co., of Alexandria,; I did not draw the bills at
all?-A. I guess you did; other\wise I should have paid the check to
Eldridge & Co., and should have so put it dowin in the book.




CRI.'EDIT MOBILIER.                   481
By Mr. BANKS:
Q. When you saw this cheek the other day, did you recognize it as
one you ha,d 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
in 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?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. You remember the initials? —A. No, sir; I do not remember them
distinctly.
By TMr. HALE:
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 conversationl that occurred between you and Mr. Amtes.-A. Mr. Ames was
at the office looking over the different checks this morning or yesterday
afternoon. I said to Mr. Amnes, " Did 1 not pay you that cheek.7" And
he replied, " I think it very likely."
By Mr. Axins:
Q. Did you not tell me you could not tell?-A. I did not tell you anything about it.
Q. Have you not been beflre this committee and testified that you
could not recollect who you paid the checks to?-A. I said so under the
sanctity of an oath. My mind was not sufficiently clear to state under
oath that I recollected to whom I had paid it, but my impression was as
strong then as it is now.
Q. Can you remember who you paid cheeks to foLr 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 miy testimony that I could not recollect.
Q. You have not examined youLr iemorandum-book since, have you IA. No, sir; I have not,.
By Mrr. MOCnAnT~Y:
Q. Did you pay all the checks d(rawn on the Sergeant-at-Arms?-A.
Tot all of them.
Q. Did youL pay most of them about that time — A. I did most of
them-l about that time.
Q. Was this an unusually large check I-A. Yes, sir; we very seldom
had a check for $1,.200. Th,- salary of a member was $416 a, month,
anid they mostly drew it out every month; sometimes they would allow
it to run up to $1,)00, but it was something unusual.
WVASHINGTON, Fiebruary 11, 1873.
SCuUYLERn COLIFAX 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. —Aiswer. The chairman of the committee will remember t;hat after Mr. MeComb had testified, and his testiX31 x




482                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
mony had been printed to the effect that Mr. Allies had written and
said to him that I had made some ruling or parliamentary maneuver by
which Mr. Washburn's move against the Union Pacific Railroad had
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 CHA[RUiAN 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 somle parliamentary maneuver I had thwarted some move of Mir. Washburn against
the Pacific Railroad. Not being able, therefore, to obtain any satisfactory or precise statement of what ruling was alluded to, I took the
liberty of asking a gentleman, who I suppose the members of the committee will recognize as one of the ablest parliamentarians in the country,
the journal-clerk for twenty-five years of the House of IRepresentatives,
to examine every ruling made by me on the subject of the Union Pacific
lRailroad 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:
"6 CLERK'S OFFICE,
"H HOUSE OF REPIRESENTATIVES UNITED STATES,
February 10, 1873.
I DEAR SIR: At your request I have examined the proceedings of the
House of Representatives for the session of Congress commencing December, 1867, and ending July, 1868, as reported in the Congressional
Globe.
"I have examined all your rulings as Speaker on every proposition
made during the entire session by Hon. E. B. Washburne and Hon. C.
C. Washburn in relation to the -Union Pacific Railroad, and find no
ruling made by you that was not (inl my judgment) comma,nded and
justified by parliamentary law.'" Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"JOHN M. BARCLAY,' Joiurnal-Clerk, House of Representativtes.
" H4]on. SCIHUYLER{ COLFAX.7
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, and for which certain legislation had been exacted. I replied to these charges in a speech at
South Bennd, Indiana, September 25, 1872, in which, aftexr 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 ftom 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 inmmobilier, if there is one; nior (-1o I klow of any law prohibiting it.                  * i                               *.'




CiREDIT MOBILIER.                      483
" DLo I need to add that neither 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 MIobilier, or any other railroad stock, and
that, unfortunately, I have never seen nor received the value of a farthing out of the 270 per cent. dividends, nor the 800 per cent. dividends
in cash, stock, or bonds, you have read about for the past month, nor
100 per cent., nor the tenth part of one per cent. I have said that if
twenty shares of it could be purclased at par without buying into a
prospective lawsuit, it would be a goodinvestment, 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 ex'tracts that I publicly claimed last fall
the right to purchase the stock, and avowed frankly that I would have
been willing to pay par for twenty shares if I did not buy into a prospective lawsuit, but that no possible profits could induce me to involve
myself in litigation. Having over four years before this speech voluntarily 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 ownership 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 understood 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. omittedl, entirely changing its sense.
MIr. Ames having sworn, December 17, in his original statement before the committee, which he declared (see page 21 of the evidence) embodied the exact facts, that he could not remember having paid me any
dividends, now declares that in June, 18868, a check payable to the initials'" 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 beenl paidl or proffered by him, directly or indirectly,
in cheek, stock, or bonds, $1,200, or $100, or $1, or any amount whatever. I further state that I have not the slightest knowledge, recollection, 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 positive 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 profiered to me, in person
or through any other channel, any checl, 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 rememberin'g that addition to my income, and especially in a check drawn so singularly to initials, and not containing
my name at all. Nor could I have talked to him when he failed, as.I
did, about letting  tile $500 go, which I had paid himn on the dividend
stock, if he hiad paid me an overplus of $700.
I must add that till to-lay I have never heard of the certificate for
fifteen hundred dollars of Union Pacific bonds, sixty dollars interest on.
which Mr. Amles sa.ys he paid me in January, 1869G and I would not
have been more astounded'to have been charged by him with the assassination of one of his own family than I hlave been by his charges that




484                    CRE)IT SIOBILIER.
he paid me3 either twelve hundred dollars, or sixty dollars, on any other
account whatever on the stock that 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 certificate, 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.
Difficult as it is to recall all the transactions of five years of a public
mauls life, I will state to the committee where all the money camle froml
deposited from June 227 1868, and will add that it was the month immediately succeeding my nomination for the office 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 acenmulation 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; onue for
$250, dated June 12, signed by E. C. Cowdin, and one for $500, dated
June 17, signed by T. Denny & Co., none of them having the slightest
connection with the subject of investigation before this committee.
Of the deposit of bills, two hundred dollars, I 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 Steinway & 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
lBays 1868, 1 had numberless appeals for contributions for political expenses 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 lday, as friends were unexpectedly liberal in their contributions to me.
I therefore asked M5r. fMatthews to pay me his indebtedness as soon as he
could raise it, to assist me inl meeting these demands incident to my
new position. During the month of June, 1868, andl, as nearly as I can
fix the time, about the middle of the monoth, he paid me $200 in bills on,
account, and early the next month he paid me another installment, compiletinDg the whole payment before Congress adjourned, late in July. I
am very: confident that this 8200 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 paynment, and, as near as I can fix the date,
about the middle of the month of June, and very soon after the payment by iMr. Matthews, I was opening my letter-mail at the breakfasttable, in accordance with rmy 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 congratulating me most cordially and warmly on my nomination for the
Vice-Presidency, iand saying that the writer desired to send me confidentially the remittance inclosed to aid ine in the heavy expenses of
the canvass, but wished it kept al secret, as neither his family nor any




CREDIT MOBILIER                       485
one else Wrould ever know of it unless I told themn. 1iclosed in this
letter was a greenback or national bank bill of 81,000. It was as gratifying as it wras liberal, and holding up the letter and the bill I asked
the attention of all my family to it, and then read them the letter. The
fact of sending so large a bill by mail was commented on, and the magnitude of the gift was discussed, when MAr. Matthews remarked that it
came in good time, either he or I then referiring 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 examined. I a-n 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 6ould 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 commnittee. The draft, indorsed by Mr. Conner, was
found in the bank here and laid before your committee the next day
after the banlk 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. HollJster, whose residence is in a distant Territory beyond the iRocky Mountains.
I said it was fortunate there were living witnesses to this besides myself, 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, and if it was revealed it would have to be by me; and he evidently sent it in a bill the more surely to accomplish the object.
During the last eight or ten years 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 employ6s, 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 afll the
letters I have preserved, and have not found 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.
1 remember distinctly that after my 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




486                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
others do, more than once almost filling a waste-basket with the fragments 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 theln having made a three
thousand mile midwinter journey alone to tell this committee her recollection of it. W~hen my bank account was examined here the cashier
was 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 $45,0}00 in
one year, and the inference was that I could therefore easily have forgotten the $1,200 in question. As my' general accounts have thus 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 accounts, 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 Sl,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 investment 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 $57,000 in a western rollingmill; and a payment of $1,750 to Ricketson Burroughs, for money borrowed of him. This amounts to 830,000 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 I 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 $12,000 from this source, of which I estimate about
$10,000 was deposited here. I sold the $5,000 seven-thirties, and also
sold the Tribune share at $6,100, and Mir. Matthews returned me the
$455 he owed me. Besides these items, I sold sixty-two shares of Adams
Express at 72k, and $6,000 in second-mortgage bonds of the Alton and
Terre Haute Railroad for $4,920, making about $31,000 in all, which
offsets the $30,000 of investments charged againlpt 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 lecturilg-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 counsel 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 AMOBILImR.                    487
others with whom you spoke upon the subject, fron the time of your
leaving or abandoning this investment, you considered yourself, spoke
of yourself, and believed yourself a loser to the extent of $500 by the
operation, instead of being a gainer to the 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 summer of 1868; I say as early as the summer of'68, because my recollection is that it wa's in the spring of 1868 that Mr. Ames states he told
Mr. Blaine frankly a lawsuit was pending, or threatened. I told lmy
family that I had abandoned this contract of purchase, and therefore
when I spoke to Mr. Ames, after his failure, failing as he (id on account
of his Pacific Railroad 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
impossible 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.
lHe 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 have not; I mean since the time I abandoned the contract,
which was when I heard of the threatened litigation, or of the 4prospective 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, immediartely after the adjournment, and it
was because of that prospective lawsuit, I said in my speech that 1" 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
al 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 vou went immediately after the adjournment
of Congress in 1868.-A. Congress adjourned Monday, the27th of July, and
my family and myself left either on Monday or Tuesday, I cannot now recall to mind which. We arrived at South Bend, and left there the enssuing Monday, or within a day or two thereafter. I think about the 4th
of August I went with my 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. V 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 altogether 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 talled 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 yon and bMr.




488                    CREDIT MOBILIER,
Ames, with reference 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 paylment of the $534.72
was made the 5th of 3Iarch.  I looled for that check in the bank, because I intended to present it to the committee, and had forgotten it
was drawn on the Sergeant-at-Arms. I then stated to Mr. Niblack my
recollection that- the sum was about $530. 1 could not call to mind the
exact amount, and that I thought it was in MalLarch. It was soon after
that I heard there was great difficulty between the principal stockholders 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 rumor, and that I
then asked Mir. Ames as to its truth. I cannot niow distinctly state from
whom I heard it. Mr. Amnes admits the truth of Mir. Blaine's statement,o
that in the spring of 1868 they had some conversation about the matter,
and that Mir. Ames told him there was a lawsuit either pending or
threatened. That confirms me in my recollection that this information
came to me in the spring of that year. Still, I have no means by which
I can fix the exact date, except that it was in that session of Congress.
Q. Did you hear anything in relation to Mir. IcComb?-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 impression 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 New York in the stationery business, originally a printer.
Q. You are not able to find this letter? —A. 1 amnot. I cannot find
any political letter of June, 1868, at all. I have made a thorough search
three times over, including this box fill of letters found by Mr. Chauncey, and brought to me, as I stated, in 1869.
Q. You have made such a search ameong 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
is deepened from the fact that when I showed the letter and bill, Mr.
Matthews, whom I had asked to pay mie, at once said that it came in
very excellent time for me, as he had heard 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 I 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 regarded it as a rather poor financial investment upon 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. litigation. 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. AVe were




CREDIT' MOBILIER.                   48S
in the Capitol together, and probably had conversations in regard to
other matters. I imay add, that when I said to Mr. Ames that I must
be off or out of it, he put his hand in his pocket, took out a small coinand said, "0 Consider that I have bought it back." I said to him, " Nosir; I want it to be understood that I am out of it entirely/," because I
did not want to be in any lawsuit.
Q. What did he say to that?-A. He assented to that; I cannot ca@li
to mind his words;.he did not dissent; I understood that he assented,
but that he hald his way of paying me something so as to regard it as
bought back; my idea was that I had no certifiecate and no dividends5
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 opening 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 before
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. You 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 -yo
had paid.-A. There ewas not.
Q. Nothing by you nor by him.-A. By me nor by him; I said to
hi-n 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 sulm of $534? You had received nothing? —A. I had received nothing.
Q. Do you remember whether you were to receive it from Mr. Ames? —A. I had this impression about that; I thought Mfr. 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 lawsuit. 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 niatter 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 munch more, even
if you had taken it? —A. No, sir; it would not.
Q. Do yon remember whether you had heard at that time anything
in relation to the value 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
you had held on to it, and there had been no liability of getting into




490                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
litigation, was to earn for you the large profits which have been stated.A. Notling like so large as have been stated since that time. I had.
traveled across the country in a stage-coa'ch, having previously made
numberless speeches in favor of a Pacific railroad, for the purpose of endeavoring, 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 ime about the purchase of the stock, that the gentlemen of capital who had gone into the Pacific road, instead of letting the work out
to contractors who 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? —A. No, sir; I 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 pushed 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 condition.
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 rmemory,of having received?-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,
180'9. That would have been between the time when you say the coIntract was rescinded or thrown up, and the time when you had this conversation with him, after his failure or embarrassment; you have no'recollection of any transaction between you in reference to this stock
during that period of time — A. I have none. My recollection coincides
4exactly 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 upon 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,
but in money, would not be likely to be deposited by you, or any so small




CREDIT MOBtIL 1,,.                  491
amount if you had received it?-A. I do not know. I cannot tell whether
if I received a small amount of money like that I would deposit it or not.
Sometines 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 thle 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 therefore have had no opportunity of examining it  -A. I never heard of it
until to-day.
By Mir. MCCRARY:
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. Reference
was made directly in the letter to the 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 it 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 Miay 9 —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. 0, yes, sir.
Q. If you had received $1,000 from New York and $1,200 from Mr.
Ames, you would -have deposited both?-A. I would have deposited
both.
By Mir. 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. I am
very clear it was afterward, because the impelling cause of Mr. Matthews's remark about it seenmed to be based on the money he had paid
me at my request.
By Mr. MCCtRARY:
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. MERRICK:
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; perhaps 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
that it was about the middle that Mr. Matthews paid me, and that it
was within a day or so after that I received this money. I made no deposit from the 1st until the 22d of June, and out of this $c1,200 I'sent
the check for the $1,000 in accordance with the talk we had at its receipt, and in accordance with the donor's wish.




492                     CRE EDIT MOBILIER.
By 3Mr. HALE:
Q. At that time where did you live?-i-A. I lived il 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 Capitol1
daily? —A. I was, with the exception of when I was sick. I always left
as soon as breakfast was over. TMy correspondence was immense, and
my duties somewhat laborious, and I therefore passed the bank on my
way to the Capitol early in the morning, 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 occupied with
the duties of your office 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 position, my time was entirely occupied and engrossed.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. Do you know at what time the bank ordinarily opens? —A. It
opens for business purposes at 10 o'clock; but a little after 9 I would
go in, and they always receives 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 you
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 into the carriage and drive directly to the Capitol.
WVASHINGTON, February 11, 1873.
GEORGEE W. MATTHEWS sworn and examined by Mr. Hale.
Question. You are the step-father of Vice-President Colfax f —Answer. I married his mother..Q. She is now deceased? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are a clerk in the office of the House of Representatives, 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 Mlrs. Hollister, was then unmarried.
Q. Have you any recollection in regard to, your payments of money
to Mr. Col-hx 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 would 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 I paid himn $50, which,




c6REDIT MOBILmIE1m.                    493
with five dollars he habd borrowed of his mother, maide the payment of
fifty-five dollars. About the 3d or 4th day of July, I do not remember
which-TI am pretty certain it was not the 1st or 2d — realized for some
coupons or bonds I had, and paid him  another $100; and when Congress adjourned, which I think was the 25th or 26th of July, if I remember 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 klnowledge inu regard to the receipt of nmoneys through
the mail, by AMr. Colfhx, i4 June, 1868?-A. Yes, sir; I remember it
very well.
Q. State fully and distinctly all your recollection of that transaction.-A. According to my mnmory, fron the way.j see it now before
mne, I think it must have been three or four days after I paid Mr.
Colfax this $200. At the brelakfast-table one morning, as usual, Mr,
Colfax had spread out his letters and papers at the 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 writtenx on ordinary letter-paper, and held it up,
with his thumb pressed upon a bank-bill, as I now hold this sheet of
paper, (illustrating.)  He held it up fbr 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 second letter I have received from him."
I remarked,' That comes in good time."  Y~es," says he, "I this will
help me fix out 1Ham. Conner, for he is clamorous for money." This was
the verv remark he made at the time. His mother said, I"Read the letter, 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
t'he contents of it. It was a pleasant, congratulatory letter. Mr. Nesbitt said he had great regard for Mr. Colfa, x as a public man; seemed
to be greatly delighted that the convention selected him, onie of the
craft, as one of its standard-bearers. He supposed that Mr. Colfa, x had
not a great amount of money, and he begged him to accept the -inclosed.
He did not mention any aimount except the inclosed. He said Mr. ColfaXx might feel delicate about receiving it, but thcat he had no political
favors to ask, and as no member of his family knew or would know of
his sending the mloney, they could not claim anything on account of it.'That was about all there was in the letter. It was a verv friendly letter. lMy wife and I spoke of it a great many times, for it was an unReommon'thing for a letter containing a thousand-dollar bill to come
into the family. It gratified her very much.    We talked about it fiequently.
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 l have mentioned.
Q. Do you remember the subject of hearing an interest Mr. Colflax
hlad in Credit Mobilier being talked over in the family?-A. We talkeii
it over several times in the family. I have heard much said upon the
subject. It was spoken of several times, to mry recollection. Of course
you will understand there has been a good deal said about it this
winter.
Q. I am now speaking of whalt was said as far back as 1868?-A.
WTe had some conversation on the subject.




494.                    CREDIT A1OBILIER.
Q. Will you state what was said as to his being a loser or gainer
in that transaction?-A. Early in the spring of 1868, Mr. Colfax remarked to his mother, and to the family, that he thought he should
take a trip on the Union Pacific iRailroad 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 the 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 bor some stock in the Credit Mobilier.
I asked him what they proposed to do. He said they proposed to pay
good dividends. I made some little farther inquiries about the institution, and the conclusion, I think, was, that there was a little rivalry between us as to our investment. I told him it looked to me like the place
where the big fish 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.1 had of my bond, and
whether I had not made the best investment. He said, "'That thilng has
gone up."  I asked him how it had gone up. He said there was a prospect 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. lly wife and M1rs. 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, "MIy y 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 hilm for it until he gets able to pay it,2  He mentioned the amount
of $500. This is all I ever heard at the time of the Credit Miobilier or
of his' stock in it.
By the CAI-raRIAN:
Q. This is all the conversation you had with Mr. Colfax or heard in
his ftmitly in reference to his ownv]ing 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 mnake a contract for some shares; he did not say
how much.
Q. Dicd you ever hear anything from himl in relation to the $500, until
this conversation you had about Mr. Ames's failure?-A. I do not think
I ever heard him mention i~t; I think he never mentioned, to my knowledge, how mluch 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 conversation we had upon the subjeet.
Q. In this dealing between you and Mr. Colfax, did any note or obligation pass between you for the money youl owed hin ~?-A. No, sir.
Q. There was nothing in writing about it?.-A. No, sir; nothing.
Q. There was no memorandumn kept by you?-A. I kept a little mremorandumn of my payments. I had very little cash -balance except simply




CREDIT MOBILIER.                      495
the receipt of my salary, which I generally gave to mny wife and daughter to use for their purposes, and, being in society, they could easilydispose 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 memorandumbook 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 memorandunm-book, in which I ihave occasion
sometimes to put c down any such little transaction.
Q. Do you think that memiorandum which you. kept in 1868 is in existence 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 no;w, it probably shows this
enxtry of $200?-A. I think probably it does.
Q. If you have preserved it at all, it is probably here in Washington f?A. No, sir; I have no memoranduim-book in Washington of any date
longer ago than last fall.
Q. You do not spend your time here except during the session?-Aa
That is all. All the transactions that I had in money beyond the ordinary receipt of my salary was the payment of this $400 which-I owed to.
3Mr. Colfax.
Q. In -this conversation in which Mr. Colfax spoke of Mr. Ames having become embarrassed, and of his owking him $500, did he say what it
was for.-A. Hle (lid not thatt I rememlber.
Q. He did not make any explanlation?-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 in reply to her expression of sympathy.
Q. She was a fiiend of 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, about Mrs. Ames; and in speaking oi
her, as I have said, spole of her as "My M[rs. Ames; she did it in that:
way to designate her as Mrs. Oakes Ames.
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 11, 1.873.
Mrs. CAROLINE HOLLISPTER sworn and examined.
By 3r. HALE:
Question. Where do you. now reside? —Answer. In Utah.
Q. What is your husband's name?- A. O(vando.
Q. You. are the half-sister of Mr. Colifax?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the summer of 1,868 were yon unmnarried?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mir. Colfax was also unmarried? —A. Yes, sir..
Q. Where did you reside — A. AWvith him in W Tashington.
Q. You have come from Utah here for the purpose 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 hint, inclosing a thousand-dollar bill, in June, 1868;'if so, state
fully all your knowledge in relation to it. —.. I remember he received
a thousand-dollar bill in June, and thlat lie saidt it camne from Mr. Nesbitt,




496                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
of New York. It was inclosed 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. Colfax, and begged.him to accept the thousand-dollar bill, which he sent ill a bill, as I remember it, so that there could be no record of it. He did not wish his
family even to know about it. MFr. Colfax was rather doubtful of the
propriety at first of receiving it, lest the gentleman might want his innuence 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 havee You
say youn think it was in June; do you know that it was after the nomination — A. Yes, sir; it was during the first excitement after the nomination, when he was receiving congratulations from every one.
Q. Hlow long did that excitement last?-A. He was receiving congratulations 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 that 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 with. my friends.
Q. Can you say with whom?-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:emlember it?-A. Yes, sir; just as I recollect it.
By the CAIRiMAN:
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
had heard of him.
Q. You did not know him?-A. No, sir; 1 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 between 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 remember.
Q. You saw the money that came in the letter?-A. I cannot positively 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 iA. 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 MOBILIER.                      497
Mr. HALE stated that Mrs. Colfax was present, and if the committee
desired to inquire of her she would be able to testify in regard to conversations about the thousand dollars during the trip referred to to
Colorado. As the counsel of Mr. Colfax, he did not wish to offer her as
a witness, but would leave it for the committee to call her if they so desired.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the committee would not call Mrs. Colfax
of their own motion as a witness.
The following letter was 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. Relying upon this record, the only one then before me to refresh my memory, and having then no access to the Union Pacific Railroad records,
copies of which I have just seen, it is now due to your committee, and
to myself, to addc 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.'4 It will be seen, however, in Mr. Durantl's, Mr. Crane's, and Mr. Haml's
testimohy, and from the Credit Mobilier certificates of Mr. Neilson, that
December 26, 1867, before I 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.
Yours, respectfully,
" JAMES BROOKS.
"' Hon. L. P. POLAND, Chairman, &c., &c., &C."
The following is the certificate and indorsement handed by Oales
Ames to the chairman, by request of Mr. Kelley, as set forth in the testimony:
Incorporated under a special act of the State of Pennsylvania.
THE CREDIT MOBILIER OF AMERICA.
No. 373.                                       10 Shares.
rz    This certifies that Oakes Ames, Trustee, is entitled to Ten =.
Shares in the Capital Stock of the Credit Mobilier of America, A,   transferable on the books of the company in person or by.
Attorney at the office of the Treasurer, in the city of Phila-  
delphia, or at any Transfer Agency established by the Com-   O
a   pany, only upon surrender of this certificate.    -  
~   Witness the signatures of the President and Secretary of  
~.  the company, Dated at the Transfer Agency in the City of,,  New York, this thirteenth day of March, 1868.
SIDNEY DILLON,             CD;~~~~~~~m~~~~~~ Presiden t.                         a
BENJAMIN F. HAM,                       P     e
Ass't Secretary.                        ~
>.-   [Stamped as follows:] Credit Mobilier of America, Philap   delphia, 1859.                                             o
32 x




498-                   CREDIT MOBIIER.
[Indorsed on the back as' follows:]
For value received the undersigned hereby asssign and transfer unto
Shares
of the capital stock of the Credit 3Mobilier, 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 required by the regulations and by-laws of said company.
In witness whereof       ha   hereunto set       hand and seal
this          day of,186
OAKES AMIES, Trustee.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of —
Re-examination of OAKES A1 ES.
By Mr. M:ERRIcK:
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 Compqny, 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 Railroad Company, and pay him any sum of
money in that capacity?-A. Yes, sir; there was.
Q. By whomr ~ -A. General Butler recommended that we should employ Mr. Carpenter as counsel for the road.
Q. Did you employ him in consequence of General Butler's recommendatcion — A. No, sir; I did not know that we wanted any counsel.
i wrote to my brother, who was then president of the road, about 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 circumstances, it seemed highly improper that we should employ him as counsel, or spend any money for any suich 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 counsel and pay him a compensation as an electioneering fund, to aid him in
his election.-A. I 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? —A. He was not employed to my
knowledge; I do not think he was; I have no reason to suppose he
twas.
Q. Have you any recollection as to whether the sum of $10,000 was
paid to him nominally as counsel by the Union Pacific Railroad Company?-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. Buffinton, to
the ejftct 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 acquiesced in to my knowledge..The suggestion was made, as I said, about
his being 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. Buffinton of what transpired 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 Railroad Company?A. I do 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 $107000.
Q. That suggestion was made by General Butler? Was there any reason given, such as that it would be important to have his influence in
the Senate as a friend of the Union Pacific Railroad?-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. Buffinton 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
Bautler I would refer it; that I had no authority in the matter.
Q. Have you any other knowledge in reference to that subject?-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 alt 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 knowledge.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. At the time of this conversation between you and General Butler,
was General Butler the counsel for the company?-A. NTo sir; I did not
so consider him.
Q. Was this conversation between you and General Butler prior to
iMr. 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 expectation 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. MdERRCK:
Q. Did General Butler. make any such remnark, 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 mny impression. I am a very bad hand to repeat conversation, but
that is my recollection of it.
By Mr. McCnAnY:
Q. Do you know whether an application was made to the Central
Pacific Railroad 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 commlDittee-room. or the other; I never
heard of it until quite recently.
WTASHINGCTON, D. C., February 11, 1873.
JAMES BUFFINTON, a member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Massachusetts, sworn and examined.
By Mr. MJFERRICK:
Q. Did you have any conversation with Oakes Ames, or hear any
conversation with Oakes Ames, relating to the employment of Mr. Carpenter 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
General Butler state that an offer had been made for the Union Pacific
Railroad Company to retain Mr. Carpenter as counsel; this was before
he 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 ms  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 remember 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 I —A. I could not say there was any reason given.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. You stated that he said the suggestion had come down front 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. Carlenter in the Senate as a friend of the Union Pacific Railroacd?-A.
NSthing, to my knowledge.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    501
Q. Then, why should the Union Pacific Railroad 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 conversation.-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? —A. No, sir; I do not
think it was at the time of the conversation I had with him; I inferred
that nothing had beenl given at all; he remarked that the thing, was
objected to by Mr. Alley.
By the CHAIRMAN:
Q. When was this conversation with General Butier - A. I cannot
fix the precise date; my impression is that it was four years ago; probably in the month of February, beforie the -meeting of the Forty-first
Coingress.
By Mr. MCCRARY:
Q. It was before Mr. Carpenter's election to the Senate — A. It was
before Mir. Carpenter's election to the Senate.
By MIr. 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 remember; and I do not wish to be understood that General Butler presented this proposition to retain Mr. Carpenter as counsel at all, or that
he advocated its acceptance by the Union Pacific Railroad 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.
WASHILNGTON, D., C., PFebrumary 19, 1873.
The committee met. Present: the chairman, and iMessrs. McCrary,
Niblack, and Merrick.
Mr. SCHUYLER COLFAX again appeared before the committee, attended
by his counsel, Robert S. Hale.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that the committee had learned from 3ir.
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 remittances at other times made by Mr. Nesbitt to him, which Mr. Colfax will
explain this morning; (producing the letters before the committee;).but




502                    CREDIT MOBILIER.
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 themselves and from the injunctions contained in them, that they were of a
confidential character, and certainly ought not to be, voluntarily and without any sufficient reason, brought before the public. Since Mr. Colfax testified I have learned that the committee had been instituting inquiries
concerning 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 Congress, 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 committee the narrative of his entire connection, correspondence, acquaintance, 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 received the following letter, inclosing a check for $1,000:
" NEW YORK, April 17, 1868.
DEAR SIR: I beg your acceptance of the inclosed to assist in defraying your personal expenses during the present political campaign.
" I beg to say that I am ever ready to forward the interest of a deserving member of the craft, and as I am pleased with you, (though personally 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. SCHUYLE1R 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 mle. I thought over it a good deal as to what I
should do in relation to it. It struck me as surprising and needing explanation.'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
mon.ey in some other way-by bill or otherwise-but had finally decided




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    503
on 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 political purposes. The letter said that it
was "4 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 accept 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;following reply:
"N6 Ew YoRE, April 20, 1868.
" DEAR Sin: 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. YWhen I ask in my note of the 17th that the matter may be confined 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 that 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,
6"GEOIRGE F. NESBITT.
"' Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX,
" Washington, D. C."
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
me 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 June, And that an unfavorable impression was sought to be created out of it, I felt that if this friend could come back, he would say that
for my vindication he *ould have no objection to publicity.
Mr. xHALE, (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, on 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 $17000 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 Mionday morning the 22d. I suppose it was received during the preceding 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 myself-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 organizing 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 31r. 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. In the letter
from Mr. Nesbitt inclosing the $1,000 bill he said that it was to be confidential 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 frequently 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 corroborative of what others hav;e testified to:
"; ~IELLOGG, Febsruary 12, 1873.
MY DAItLING BPrOTI-IER: 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 fifid I haye not a letter in the house back of-,1872. I generally destroy all old letters and papers once a year, as I have no way
of keeping them without lying around. I am v6ry, very sorry about it.
I remember mother writing about the nomination. In the next letter,
she wrote about a friend sending Schuyler a $1,000 bill, and says at
the same time,' Who can say they don't appreciate my boy?' In the
same letter she told about your all going to Denver, and I distinctly remember 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 81,000 was more than we could make from our farm in
four years.7"
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, I 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 billinto this draft which is here.. On the 11th of
July, just after the New York papers had announced that the Mississippi
election, the first election of the canvass, had been carried by the republicans, and when Congress. was expected to adjourn in a few days, I received 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 election 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 YORInr 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 election, 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 I am 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 importuned 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.
T, like yourself, was at an early age sent forth to earn a living and establish a character. In the first I have succeeded to my utmost deserving; 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 fo know that it
is almost impossible for a poor boy to become prominent as a statesman 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 matter will there terminate.
"I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
"GEORGE F.'NESBITT.
"H on. SCHUYLER COLFAX, Washi?,gton."
This letter, as the committee will see, not only inclosed the check for
$1,000, but gave me a carte blanche 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 remember 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 recei-ved, much less 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 appreciation of your generosity toward me." 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. IHALE. Is that the only favor he asked of you?
Mr. COLFAX. That is the only favor he ever asked of me. In conversation he told me that he believed in administering on his own estate.
iHe 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 permitted, 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 parttoward him, scarcely knowing how to express myself, because I never had found such a large-hearted friend in h11 mny life; and
to that letter he replied as follows:
NEW YORIC, July 18, 1868.
"My DEAR SIR: Your 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 and
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 that they will be retained, and others
who are 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 any 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.
I 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
Railroad and take a trip 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 miles from the depot, in a very quiet neighborhood, 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 personally acquainted, I never having seen you except from the gallery of




CREDIT MOBILIER.                    507:the House, and you never having seen me at all. I feel that I am taking liberties with you, but I do assure you I am anxious only for your
success.. In the first place because you are a son of New York, but more
particularly because yon have shown conspicuously that, though born
of humble parentage, you have been tendered almost the highest honor
in 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
November next I shall have another one thousand dollars for your use,
and will require your address at that time. You 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 sufficient 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 ldo 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
ait 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 interesting 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 correspondence should be private, and when a discontinuance would appear
desirable by you, you are only to notify me and your wish shall be re3spected.
" Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
" GEORGE F. NESBITT.
" Hon. SCHUYLER COLFAX, Washington, D. C.7
This letter alludes to a remittance which the writer intended to make
about the 1st of November, and which I 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 of 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 cannot be found; so that for -two of these remittances only
can 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 slightest allusion to that nomination. But as I have testified to the committee, and as my family has testified, the letter which I am unable to
produce, and which contained the one thousand dollar bill, was a congratulatory letter, warmly so, one which I might expect from a man who
would lavish four thousand dollars upon me in a single year. This genfleman died very soon after I was inaugurated.
Mr. HALE. These letters are all inclosed in the original envelopes,
and some of them are postmarked?




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, I
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 November; 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 Indianians, 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 bekept
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 affidavit 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 prominence, 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:
iRicketson 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 New 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,'7 He had no axes to grind,' and he had abundance of means
for himself and family, and wished, if Mr. Colfax would accept, to bestow 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, I 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 affidavit 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 MOBILIER.                    509
and 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 (Colfax) soon after sent the amount so received to the
chairman of the ceintral committee at Indianapolis.
RICKETSOtN BURROUGHS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of February, A.D. 1873.
[SEAL.]                        GEORGE H. ALWARD,
Notary Public.
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 recollceting 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,)
$1,014.49.
Mr. HALE. That was drawn on account of salary?
Mr. COLFAX. On account of salary. What the $44.49 is for I am unable 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 Sergeant-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, 4" Pay to the order of Hon. A. HI. Conner, of Indianapolis," was indorsed by Mr. Conner, and passed through the bankinghouse 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 Sergeant-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 difficult to trace it. I presented the account of the Sergeant-at-Arms to
show that I drew that very day $1,044.49 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, I can show all my political experiences, my personal'expenses, and my gifts; and I will say frankly to the committee that I desirethis 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 household 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. 0, 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 been 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
beca'use it was a personal gift.  I accepted other sums for political use
in that campaign, and used theml for legitimate and honorable political
purposes.
The CHAIRaIAN. The point of all our inquiry is to ascertain whether
any of these sums were paid by the money received from Mr, Ames;
anid 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 in 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 rememnbered 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 $1,200, because the time of its being  paid was not
precisely indefinitely stated, and because it was possible that the thousand dollars received from Mr. Nesbitt might have gone in those $1,200.
In 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
dav. 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 subsequent deposits. YWe could see that it might be important to determine
and to know precisely what each of these'deposits was made up of, and
acco:dingly I have procured from the bank the copies of all the deposit,
checks. Our purpose was to satisfy ourselves whether or not that thousand 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 dollars of the 1st of June, that I was informed at the bank that a gentleman 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
iccessible, and has been the subject of a good deal of scrutiny.) I said
to the cashier,." Why did you not show it?" He said, "6 Because it is
not our way." The deposit of the 1st of June was composed of a sevenbundred-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 received from the First National Bank of South Bend, and of a four-hundired-do.llar check which Ii think was perhaps on account of my salary.
The check which I received from Mr. Nesbitt on the 11th of July, I deposited on the 13th of July. Five dlays afterward I got $1,044 in cash
from the Sergeant-at-Arms, and, on that very same day, I sent this second draft for a thousand dollars, in compliance with my promise, to Mr.
Conner. I must evidently have stated to AMr. 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 e
Mr. COLFAX. HeI was a large stationer-one of the old-time stationers
of New York. Years before his relations with me, he obtained a contract 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 anything about it; but, on the contrary, told me that he had instructed his
falmily never to ask a favor of me.
Mr. NIBLACK. Had you any con Xnection with him before that as a Govern ment contractor?
Mr. COLFAX. Never.
Mr. NIBLACK. It has beenl suggested to me that he had contracts
under the Government while you were chairman of the Post-Office Conmmiittee of the House 7
Mr. COLFAx. That is entirely beyond my knowledge.
Mr. NIBLACK. It has also been intiraated 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 reporters that, as I have been speaking freely of a deceased mother, I trust
there will be no misrepresentation in regard to that.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say in reference to our commnunications 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 have no doubt that that was a canard. Mr. Swain,
cashier, said to me that he thought that this was an enterprising reporter.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 as 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 ohn the record.
3Mr. COLFAX. Certainly, sir.
Mr. HALE. I wish to inquire the extent of time covered by these
deposit-checks?
The CHAIRMAN. June and July.
lMr. 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
afterthe 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 e
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 letter 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. Nesbitt before the first letter 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. Nesbitt's generosity 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 without consultation with each other.
Mr. MCCR AY. Have you now any distinct recollection as to the total
sum which you received from him.
IMr. COLFAX. I received $4,000 in 1868. I have a distinct recollection
of it, for I have often spoken of it.
Mr. MOCRARY. You have no question that it was $4,000-not $3,000 1?
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. M[CCRARY. You do not think there was any possibility of your
being mistaken, and that the total was not $3,000, but $4,00 0.?
Mr. COLFAX. No, sir; I am  positive about it being $4,000 during
1868. The affidavit which I have presented corroborates tliat 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, J{r.
Burroughs, about it, and about my having received from him (as Burroughs 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 mayhaving sent the money to the chairman of the central committee; and I
have presented the two drafts corresponding in time.
By Mr. OAK ES AmES:
Question. You say that you received a cheek from 3'r. Nesbitt on the
18th of April?-Answer. Yes; the check is da-ted the 17th, and it arrived 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 wisled the money sent in any other way? —
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 e -A. I do not know
whether the one sent in November was a check or a bill. This postscript
in pencil 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. —LA.
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 donation should be made by a man who was comparatixvely a stranger?A. Yes.
Q. Clan you account for so much being said about that thousand dollars when the other three thousand dollars excited no attention a 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 crispness of a new bill; the rattle was all out of it. I held it up,
and we talked of it.
Ir. AMES. It made a rattling sensation at the breakfast-table which
the checks did not make.
Mir. 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 MOBILIER.
Q. Why 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 $20,0
from somebody else to make it up? —A. I never saw Mr. Ordway's check
or $1,200 till I saw it here in the committee-room.
Mr. AmRES. 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 INovember?f-A. I have not got the letter inclosing 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 Department for furnishing envelopes — A. So I understand.
Q. For four or five y,ears, 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 given to the lowest bidder. He never spoke tome 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 understanding that they would not involve any obligation, expressed or
implied, personal or official; and it was so acquiesced in, and Mr. NIesbitt 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. AdES. No doubt of it.
AMr. COLFAX. His letters show that very conclusively.
By Mr. MIcCRARY:
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 X 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. 1 never saw any letting 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 CaIRanAN. This contract was a cont-ract with the Post-Office
Department.
Mr. COLFAX. Yes, sir. Sir. Nesbitt had it for a number of years.
ir. AMES. You were chairman of the Post-Office Committee during
this contract e




CREDIT MOBILIE.                        515
ir. 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 anything about such contracts while I was chairman of that committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Was MTr. Nesbitt a contractor to supply the HEouse
with stationery                -
Mr. COLFAX. Not that I know of. The contract he had was for furnishing stamped envelopes.
Mr. HALE. I am very confident that  the stamped envelopes were not,introduced until a later date than air. Ames mentions, and until Mr.
Colfax became Speaker of the House.
Mr. COLFAX. Let me repeat. I never had a word with Jir. Nlesbitt,:by letter, by paper, by personal interview, before April 11, 1868.
The CEAIRMAN. 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:
Nheks  as ollows......................  b......................... 
Checks, a follows --—. —. —- -.-                           $400 00
700 00
100 00, 200 00
SCHIUYLER COL:FAX.
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)                           SCIEUYLE1R COLFAX.
Deposited with the First National Bank, by Schuyler Colfax, July 8:
United States and bank notes............
Cheek, as follows...........................                   00
Deposited with the First National Bank, by Schuyler Colfax, July
13, 1868:
United States and bank notes............................
Cheeks, as follows.$1 000 00
500 00
43 88
1, 543 88
Deposited with the First National Bank, by Schuyler Colfax, July
27, 1868:
United States and bank notes..........................,Checks, a's bfollows.....................             $74 22
100 0022
174 22




516                     CREDIT MOBILIER.
June 1, 1868. C. W. Guthrie, Cas. on 3ierchants'
Nat.. N. Y...-.-...............   0 00
S. Sinclair, Park.. -. -............ 700 00
(Check noted, and dep. ticket don't find) 400 00
June 22, 1868. E. C. Cowdin, Metro., N. ~.Y....  250 00
T. Denny & Co., Am. Ex., a..  -..     500 00 
I. N. 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. M1. Pettingill & Co., rassau.....   100 0o
July 87 1868. (Don't find).........................      $150 00
July 139 1868. I. N. Seymour, leather man...... —.  43 88
G. F. Nesbitt, man. co.................  000 00
Thomas Cornell, First N. 5Y....  00 00
July 27, 1868. W. Orton, Comm..........-.    74 22
DeJvlin & Co., Broadway - -.............  100 00
NWASHIINGTO', D. C., Febr'uary 19, 873.
J. S. FOWLERt, 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 iMr. McComb,
a friend of mine, and after the usual compliments had passed, he remarked 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. Bayardl, of Delaware, to have some."  ie made a few remarks
about the stock, as that it would be very valuable, &p., and he said,
"I1 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  " (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 Jlir. Ames, and we conversed over that matter, and over Pacific Railroad 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 December, 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. McCoImb 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 MOBILIER.                    517
in December, 1867 — A. I think it was during that session. I am satisfied that it was here at Washington, and it must have been during that
session of Congress, because I met him in the Capitol. The 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, however, seemed to be very earnest in the matter.
Q. And he told you that 3Mr. Ames had some of that stock to distribute?-A. Not to distribute, but 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. 111r. Bayard was then in the Senate, and you were also in the
Senate f-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell about what time it was that you had the first conversation with Mdr. Ames about it?-A. It may have been ten days or two
weeks after our conversation with McComrb.
Q. Was it in the early part of that winter — A. I think so; it was
immediately following the conversation I had with Mr. McComb.
Q. What do you say was Mr. Ames's answer to you f-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 hacd let Mr.
Patterson have $3,000 worth of the stock.
Q. Do you recollect whether he named anybody else in connection
with it — A. No, sir; I remember that very distinctly.
Q. Did Mr. IMcComb 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 sqme 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 CHAmbIAN. When I used the word I" 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 iMr. Patterson's stock.  ir. Ames spoke of it as having
sold the stock to Mr. Patterson.
Q. You did not understand from Mr. McComb that Ames had stoe<
to give away — A. No, sir.
By Mr. MERRICK:
Q. Did you understand that stock was to be transferred at anything
less than its full market-value?-A. No, sir; there was no understanding about it. I did not know what its value was.
Q. There was nothing said with reference to its value f-A. No, sir,
not then; becaufse I did not press the inquiry in the matter at all. Mr.
ecComb said it would be valuable.
Q. Did they describe to you the exact relations between the Credit
Mobilier and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, as they are now
understood and developed? -A. No, sir; JMr. McOomb did not. Mr.
Ames and I had a full conversation about those relations.
Q. Tell what description he gave you about these relations-what ia.
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 IRailroad, and I understood from him that they were to
receive their pay-from the subsidies given the Union Pacific Railroad
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 you understand that those dividends were to consist in whole




5 1 8                  CREDIT MOBILIER.,or in part of the sock   the Union Pacific Railroad Company itself? —
A. I1 did not.
Q. Was there anything in the account and description which he gave
to you of the Credit Mobilier, and its operations in connection with the
Union Pacific Railroad 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-ma ker of the country i-A. There was such a possibility.
Q. And they were incompatible, as you understood?-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. DIERRICI.. Yes; i. speak of what you derived from his statement.
The WITNESS. Mly 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 frorm his statement than fiom 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 interests of the national bank in which I held stock, if I held any, as placing 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. IcComb or
13r. Ames kept back any explanation.
Q. Do I understand from you that you declined to take the stock?-. 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 you 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. Throughout my whole life I never had received any consideration for duty performed by me, except legitimate fees for professional service.
Mr. NIIBLACK. 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 confict 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. AICCRA~RY:
Q. Was any of your conversations with Mr. Ames during the sumnmer,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. Your 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 party.




CREDIT MOBILIER.                     519
Mr. lIMCRARy. I want to fix the date of your last negotiations with
Mlr. Ames.
The WITNESS. I (lid not have any negotiations with him about it.
Mr. MCCRAiRY. Well, your conversation.
The WITNESS. I presume that if I say in 1868, 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 it was very early in the year,
because the impeachment trial carne 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.
lMr. 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 sufficiently 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.
3IcComb's recommending you to come to me about it e
The WITNESS. Yes, sir; and only on that account.
LETTER FROM MR. BROOKS.
The following letter from kMr. 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:
WASHINGTON, lFebruary 17,
Before the Committee-Room,
itlonday, a. m., 10 o'clock and 5 minntes.
Hon. LUKE 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 only 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, Neilson, and Brooks. If there be any other charge, I demand 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 satisfaction of the court. I will show by all or nearly all the clerks in the
Union Pacific Railroad 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 man7s 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 mly uprightness and co-ordinate action
with them. It has not been done. I have asked you to call forfGovernmnent records within a mile of your court-room, to show that McComb 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 opportunity for defense as would be given a criminal in a common police
court.
Yours respectflly, but in baste,
JAIMES BROOKS.




IND EX.
ALLEY John B..
Testimony of..................... 74-80, 84-109 311, 322,405-408,
420-423, 429
State ment of..................  -..................     112
ALLISON,  William  B.
Testimony of..........................................-.. 304-30$
in relation to......... 9Y 21, 29, 347 411, 11, 215, 289-2939
30,3 334, 354, 356, 357, 408, 456, 457, 461
A3iES 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
BIAYARD, James A.
Testimony in relation to...........      4 9 15, 30, 33, 2993 336, 408
Letter of........................                    7
BECK, James B.
Testimony of2...  *        -          442
I3INGHAMM John A.
Testimony of..-...-..........1...   -.......           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
BOUITWELL George S.
Testimony in relation to             6, 21, 28, 32, 80, 92, 103, 186, 303,
3041 406 
BOYEn,  B. LM.
Testimony of.-................................... 207-211
in relation to...-....... 133, 138, 173, 174, 240, 243, 272
BR0ooKs, 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  ooo.............................................         519
BuFFr'NTODN, James.
Testimony of            -.......................     500-501
BUSHNELL,  C. S.
Testimony of........... -  179-184
CAXPENTER, Mlatthew IH.
Testimony in relation to       -e 1.7...............    8178
CHENEY, Thomas P.
Testi-mony of....................                            331
CLARK Horace. F.
Testi mony of........ —........-..-...        4"30
34 x




522                      CREDIT MOBILIER.
COLFAX, Schuyler.
Testimony of.        -.........81-84, 325-3287 481-492Y 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, 4247 425, 444 451,
454, 465-481
CRANE, fenry C.
Testimony of.................................162 42 9 430
CROUNSE, L. L.
Testimony of....-........................    318-321
]DAWES Henry L.
Testimony of..                                -      112-115
in relation to.......6 20, 27, 32, 34, 35, 367 80, 103, 104, 136,
223, 294, 295, 303, 355, 406, 407, 449
Letter -fron.m.........-    -..         -4......          114
DILLON, }~Moses.
Testimony of —.......-...............332, 334, 477-481
DILLON, Sidney.
Testimony of.................................. 227-239-349-351
D-uRANT, Thomas C.
Testimony of........ 162-178, 239-243, 365-405
ELLIOTT,
Testimony in relation to..           6, 21, 28, 32
EiE B y, Matthew G.
Testimony of.     - -2................... 32 313
FowLEr, Joseph S.
Testimony of.-..................-...-.-.-. - I -516-5[19
inl relation to. -,, 4,7 6, 9, 21, 29, 30, 33, 293, 303, 403
CAnTFIELD, 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
GARTISON, C. ]K.
Testimony of  - —...  225-227
GRImES, J. W.
Testimony in relation to.....       10 19, 20, 21, 39, 205 220, 306
EHAx, Benljamin F.
Testinony of                                131-1..........54, 342-345, 408
Letters friom -.-1.............. 138, 139
HA BLAN, James.
Testimony in relation to.............................      178
HiOLLISTER, Mrs. Caroline
Testimony of......                     - -.,............ 495-497
LEOOPE1R, Samuel.
Testimony in relation to --.....12, 19, 21, 39, 103; 138, 182,195,205
INTERlROGATORIES and answers in the Pennsylvania suit-t            49
IKELLEY, William D.
Testimony of.o..................... 197-204
in relation to0....6, 21, 28, 40, 136, 181, 297-299, 300, 3037
313-318, 322, 330, 332, 356-357, 360, 4597 466-468, 479
KENNEDY, George W.
Testimony of........of.... o o................    220-225
LOGAN, John A.
Testimony of.............                        346 347
in relation t    o................  335 339, 352-3537 460




CREDIT MOBILIER.                        523
IMCCOMB, Henry S.
Testimony of.............. 2-157, 68-74, 109-112, 275-279, 423-429
MATTHEWS, George W.
Testimony of -...-..........     492-495
NEILSON, Charles H.
Testimony of                                     115-128, 408-420
ORDWAY, N. G.
Testimony of.       -..................309, 329-331
PATTERSON, J. W.
Testimony of................      184-186, 261-266, 270-273
in relation to......... 6, 20, 26, 31, 327, 35, 40, 222, 226-270,
289, 290, 303, 313, 336-337, 352, 356, 457-458, 480
SCHELL, Augastus
Testimony of  4.........................                  441-442
SCOFP LLD, 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
S3WATN Henry C.
Testimony of. —........-..-...341, 342, 351, 352
STOCKH:OL)DERS of Credit Mobilier.
List  of...........-..................;59-67
0TooRHEES, Daniel W.
Testimony of...............-..........-........            443
WILSON, Henry
Testimony of..1....86...............    186-190
in relation to......6, 9 10, 20, 26, 327 78-80, 92, 103-104,
181, 1867 223, 228, 272, 288-289, 303, 336, 354, 406, 448, 46 
WILSON, James F.
Testimonyy of.......-....................  211-220
in relation to.......21, 29, 30, 38, 40, 41, 303, 333, 336,
408, 457