tion between the Credit Mobilier company and the Pacific railroad company, in a private conversation with the Hon. J. S. Black of Pennsylvania. Finding, in the course of that conversation, that he was familiar with the history of the enterprise, I told him all I knew about the matter, and informed him of the offer that had been made me. He expressed the opinion that the managers of the Credit Mobilier were attempting to defraud the Pacific railroad company, and informed me that Mr. Ames was pretending to have sold stock to members of Congress, for the purpose of influencing their action in any legistion that might arise on the subject.

Though I had neither done or said anything which placed me under any obligation to take the stock, I at once informed Mr. Ames, that if he was still holding the offer open to me, he need do so no longer, for I would not take the stock. This I did immediately after the conversation with Judge Black, which, according to his own recollection, as well as mine, was early in the winter of 1869-'70.

One circumstance has given rise to a painful conflict of testimony between Mr. Ames and myself. I refer to the loan of $300. Among the various criticisms that have been made on this subject, it is said to be a suspicious circumstance, that I should have borrowed so small a sum of money from Mr. Ames, about this time. As stated in my testimony, I had just returned from Europe, only a few days before the session began, and the expenses of the trip had brought me short of funds. I might have alluded in

the same connection to the fact that, before going abroad, I had obtained money from a banker in New York, turning over to him advanced drafts for several months of my congressional salary, when it should be due; and, needing a small sum, early in the session, for current expenses, I asked it of Mr. Ames, for the reason that he had volunteered to put me in the way of making what he thought would be a profitable investment. He gave me the money, asking for no receipt, but saying, at the same time, that if I concluded to take the stock, we would settle both matters together. I am not able to fix the exact date of the loan, but it was probably in January, 1868.

Mr. Ames seems to have forgotten this circumstance, until I mentioned it to him, after the investigation began; for he said, in his first testimony, that he had forgotten that he had let me have any money. I neglected to pay him this money, until after the conversation with Judge Black, partly because of my pecuniary embarrassments, and partly because no conclusion had been reached in regard to the purchase of the stock. When I paid him, I took no receipt, as I had given none at the first.

Mr. Ames said once or twice, in the course of his testimony, that I did not repay it, although he says, in regard to it, that he does not know, and cannot remember.

On these differences of recollection between Mr. Ames and myself, it is not so important to show that my statement is the correct one, as to show that I

have made it strictly in accordance with my understanding of the facts. And this I am able to show by proof entirely independent of my own testimony.

In the spring of 1868, Hon. J. P. Robison of Cleveland, Ohio, was my guest here in Washington, and spent nearly two weeks with me, during the trial of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. There has existed between us an intimate acquaintance of long standing, and I have often consulted him on business affairs. On meeting him since the adjournment of Congress, he informed me that, while he was visiting me on the occasion referred to, I stated to him the offer of Mr. Ames, and asked him his opinion of it. The following letter, just received from him, states the conversation as he remembers it:

CLEVELAND, OHIO, May 1, 1873. Dear General:-I send you the facts concerning a conversation I had with you (I think in the spring of 1868) when I was stopping in Washington for some days, as your guest, during the trial of the impeachment of President Johnson. While there, you told me that Mr. Ames had offered you a chance to invest a small amount in a company that was to operate in lands and buildings along the Pacific railroad, which he (Ames) said would be a good thing. You asked me what I thought of it as a business proposition, that you had not determined what you would do about it, and suggested to me to talk with Ames, and form my own judgment, and if I thought well enough of it to advance the money and buy the stock on joint account with you, and let you pay me interest on the one-half, I could do so. But I did not think well of the proposition as a business enterprise, and did not talk with Ames on the subject.

After this talk, having at first told you I would give the subject thought, and perhaps talk with Ames, I told you one evening that I did not think well of the proposition, and had not spoken to Ames on the subject.

Yours, truly,

Hon. J. A. GARFIELD.

J. P. ROBISON.

I subjoin two other letters, which were written about the time the report of the committee was made, and to which I refer in my remarks made on the 3d of March, in the House of Representatives. The first is from a citizen of the town where I reside; and the time of the conversation to which it alludes, was, as near as I can remember, in the fall of 1868, during the recess of Congress :

HIRAM, OHIO, February 18, 1873.

Dear Sir:- It may be relevant to the question at issue between yourself and Mr. Oakes Ames, in the Credit Mobilier investigation, for me to state that, three or four years ago, in a private conversation, you made a statement to me involving the substance of your testimony before the Poland committee, as published in the newspapers. The material points of your statement were these:

That you had been spoken to by George Francis Train, who offered you some shares of the Credit Mobilier stock; that you told him that you had no money to invest in stocks; that subsequently you had a conversation in relation to the matter with Mr. Ames; that Ames offered to carry the stock for you. until you could pay for it, if you cared to buy it; and that you had told him in that case perhaps you would take it, but would not agree to do so until you had

inquired more fully into the matter. Such an arrangement as this was made, Ames agreeing to carry the stock until you should decide. In this way, the matter stood, as I understood it, at the time of our conversation. My understanding was distinct that you had not accepted Mr. Ames' proposition, but that the shares were still held at your option.

You stated, further, that the company was to operate in real property along the line of the Pacific road. Perhaps, I should add that this conversation, which I have always remembered very distinctly, took place here, in Hiram. I have remembered the conversation the more distinctly from the circumstances that gave rise to it. Having been intimately acquainted with you for twelve or fifteen years, and having had a considerable knowledge of your pecuniary affairs, I asked you how you were getting on, and especially whether you were managing to reduce your debts. In reply, you gave me a detailed statement of your affairs, and concluded, by saying you had had some stock offered you, which, if you bought it, would probably make you some money. You then proceeded to state the case, as I have stated it above.

I cannot fix the time of the conversation more definitely than to say it was certainly three, and probably four, years ago.

Very truly, yours,

B. A. HINSDALE,

President of Hiram College.

Hon. J. A. GARFIELD, Washington, D. C.

The other letter was addressed to the Speaker of the House, and is as follows:

PHILADELPHIA, February 15, 1873.

My Dear Sir:-From the beginning of the investigation concerning Mr. Ames' use of the Credit Mo