would have warranted any unfavorable criticism upon his conduct.

The facts disclosed by the evidence, so far as he was concerned, are briefly these:

The Board of public works was considering the question, as to the kind of pavements that should be laid. There was a contest as to the respective merits of various wooden pavements. Mr. Parsons represented, as attorney, the De Golyer & McLellan patent, and being called away from Washington about the time the hearing was to be had before the Board of public works, on this subject, procured General Garfield to appear before the Board in his stead, and argue the merits of this patent. This he did; and this was the whole of his connection in the matter. It was not a question as to the kind of contract that should be made, but as to whether this particular kind of pavement should be laid. The criticism of the committee was not upon the pavement, in favor of which General Garfield argued, but was upon the contract made with reference to it; and there was no evidence which would warrant the conclusion that he had anything to do with the latter.

Very respectfully,

J. M. WILSON.

But the matter which made the greatest public scandal was the mention of his name, at one time, in connection with the great Credit Mobilier in the construction of the Union Pacific railroad.

So completely was the scandal silenced, and so straightforward and open was General Garfield's course, that the re-action soon came in his favor, and that which, for a time, threatened to ruin him, fell harmless at his feet. His life of truthfulness and his

unstained reputation for integrity and honor were of great value to him, when all his political opponents, with great glee, paraded his connection with the Credit Mobilier,derisively shouting, “Christian Statesman!" "moral patriot!" &c. So clearly did he show the innocence of his dealings with Mr. Oakes Ames, and so clearly show that he could have had no connection with any fraudulent schemes, that the record of the matter has now no historical value, except as showing how curiously public men may be beset, and how strangely misunderstood. General Garfield has given an account of the whole case, and it shows a most interesting chapter of our national history. This he made voluntarily, and to it always adheres.

General Garfield's history of the case, in a somewhat condensed form, is as follows:

"In the autumn of 1872, during the excitement of the Presidential campaign, charges of the most serious character were made against ten or twelve persons who were then, or had recently been, Senators and Representatives in Congress, to the effect that, five years ago, they had sold themselves for sundry amounts of stock of the Credit Mobilier company, and bonds of the Pacific railroad company. The price at which different members were alleged to have bartered away their personal honor and their official influence was definitely set down in the newspapers; their guilt was assumed, and the public vengeance was invoked not only upon them, but also upon the party to which most of them belonged.

By a resolution of the House, introduced by one of the members, and adopted on the first day of the session, an investigation of these charges was ordered. The parties themselves and many other witnesses were examined; the records of the Credit Mobilier company and of the Pacific railroad company were produced; and the results of the investigation were reported to the House on the 18th of February. The report, with the accompanying testimony, was brought up in the House for consideration on the 25th of February, and the discussion was continued until the subject was finally disposed of, three days before the close of the session. The investigation was scarcely begun, before it was manifest that the original charge, that stock was given to members as a consideration for their votes, was wholly abandoned, there being no proof whatever to support it.

But the charge assumed a new form, namely: That the stock had been sold to members at a price known to be greatly below its actual value, for the purpose of securing their legislative influence in favor of those who were managing the Pacific railroad. Eight of those against whom charges had been made in the public press, myself among the number, were still members of the House of Representatives, and were specially mentioned in the report. The committee recommended the adoption of resolutions for the expulsion of Messrs. Ames and Brooks, the latter on charges in no way connected with Mr. Ames or the other members mentioned. They recom mended the expulsion of Mr. Ames for an attempt

to influence the votes and decisions of members of Congress, by interesting them in the stock of the Credit Mobilier, and through it, in the stock of the Union Pacific railroad. They found that though Mr. Ames in no case disclosed his purpose to these members, yet he hoped so to enlist their interest that they would be inclined to favor the Pacific railroad and its interest, and that he declared to the managers of the Credit Mobilier company at the time, that he was thus using the stock which had been placed in his hands by the company.

Concerning the members to whom he had sold, or offered to sell, the stock, the committee say that they 'do not find that Mr. Ames, in his negotiations with the persons above named, entered into any detail of the relations between the Credit Mobilier company and the Union Pacific company, or gave them any specific information, as to the amount of dividends they would be likely to receive, further than has been already stated, [viz., that in some cases he had guaranteed a profit of ten per cent.]

* They do not find, as to the members of the present House above named, that they were aware of the object of Mr. Ames, or that they had any other purpose in taking this stock than to make a profitable investment. * * * They have not been able to find that any of these members of Congress have been affected in their official action in consequence of interest in the Credit Mobilier stock. * They do not find that either of the above named gentlemen

*

in contracting with Mr. Ames had any corrupt motive himself, or was aware Mr. Ames had any. Nor did either of them suppose he was guilty of any impropriety, or even indelicacy, in becoming a purchaser of this stock.' And finally, that the committee find nothing in the conduct or motives of either of these members in taking this stock, that calls for any recommendation by the committee of the House.'

In the case of each of the six members just referred to, the committee sum up the results of the testimony, and from that summary the conclusions above quoted are drawn. In regard to me, the committee find, that in December, 1867, or January, 1868, I agreed to purchase ten shares of Credit Mobilier stock of Mr. Ames, for $1,000, and the accrued interest from the previous July; that in June, 1868, Mr. Ames paid me a check on the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House for $329, as a balance of dividends on the stock, above the purchase price and accrued interest; and that thereafter, there were no payments or other transactions between us, or any communication on the subject until the investigation began in December last.

I took the first opportunity offered by the completion of public business to call the attention of the House to the above summary of the testimony in reference to me. On the 3d of March I made the following remarks, in the House of Representatives, as recorded in the Congressional Globe for that day:

I rise to a personal explanation. During the late investigation by the committee, of which the gentle