CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



215 



Mr. Ames, here in Washington, attending the 

 session of Congress as a member of the Honse 

 of Representatives, made contracts with and 

 made sales to various members of the Senate, 

 and to various members of the House, of a cer- 

 tain number of shares of stock in a company 

 called the Credit Mobilier of America ; that 

 such sales were made by him, and that in 

 every instance those sales were made at the 

 par value of the stock and the interest upon 

 that par value from the previous July. All 

 that is unquestioned upon the testimony be- 

 fore your committee. 



"Now, an important and material inquiry 

 is in reference to the value of that stock. I 

 shall not here go into any history of the mat- 

 ter, because it is set forth somewhat at length 

 in the report that was made by the committee 

 of which I had the honor to be the chairman, 

 and more at length in the report of the com- 

 mittee of which the honorable gentleman from 

 Indiana (Mr. Wilson) was the chairman. That 

 history sets forth the proceedings and relations 

 between the Union Pacific Railroad Company 

 and this Credit Mobilier of America. 



"I have now no occasion to speak as to 

 whether this connection between the two com- 

 panies was honest and honorable, or whether 

 it was otherwise, something or other had been 

 done, either right or wrong, by whicli, as ear- 

 ly as December, 1867, the stock of the Credit 

 Mobilier Company was understood by its own- 

 ers to be worth at least double its par value ; 

 that is, a share of $100 was worth at least 

 $200. It was so understood by the owners of 

 the stock; it was so understood by Mr. Ames 

 himself. The only sale of stock that we were 

 able to ascertain was one made by Mr. Durant, 

 one of the leading men in this transaction, to 

 Mr. Alley, another leading man. It was true 

 that, on the 20th of December, 1867, Mr. Du- 

 rant sold a certain number of shares of stock 

 to Mr. Alley for $160 per share, its par value 

 being but $100 a share. But there was proof 

 in relation to that transaction that they got into 

 a controversy about whether one of these divi- 

 dends should be made. Mr. Alley opposed it ; 

 Mr. Durant wanted the dividend made, and, 

 for the purpose of inducing Mr. Alley to con- 

 sent to the dividend, Mr. Durant sold to Mr. 

 Alley a quantity of stock for less than he him- 

 self understood it was worth at the time. Mr. 

 Durunt testified that, in his judgment, every 

 share of that stock was worth $200. 



" More than that ; we have, in the evidence 

 that has been submitted, that of Mr. Ames him- 

 self. On page 7 of the volume of evidence 

 taken by the committee there is a letter dated 

 February 22, 1868, from Mr. Ames to Mr. Henry 

 S. MoComb. In the course of that letter Mr. 

 Am essays: 



You k me if I will ell some of my Union Pacific 

 Railroad stock. I will fell some of it at par. Credit 

 Mobil'uT of America I do not can: to sell at all. I 

 h<-;ir t!i :it Mr. Bates offered his at $300, but! do not 

 wnnt Bates to sell out. I think Grimes may sell a 

 part nf hia at (SCO. 



" This shows the judgment and opinion of 

 Mr. Ames himself in relation to the value of 

 that stock. At the very lowest calculation, 

 Mr. Ames considered that stock worth, and it 

 would have sold for, double its face ; that is, 

 that every share of $100 would have sold for 

 $200, if he had chosen to sell it. 



" Now, this brings me to the question, Why 

 was it that Mr. Ames was here about Con- 

 gress, during those months of December and 

 January, peddling out his ten shares of stock 

 in a place to some dozen leading members of 

 Congress? Was Mr. Ames utterly insensible 

 to this additional $100 in money that he might 

 have obtained for each share of that stock, had 

 he chosen to sell it to somebody else? How 

 came his charitable disposition all at once to 

 be so expanded in favor of members of Con- 

 gress? The evidence in the case in reference 

 to that inquiry, and out of Mr. Ames's own 

 mouth, is incontrovertible. 



" In his letters to McComb, as set forth in 

 the testimony there are three letters from 

 Mr. Ames, written to Sir. McComb, the earli- 

 est of which is dated January 26, 1868; that 

 letter was written from Washington Mr. 

 Ames was here professedly attending to his 

 duty as a member of Congress from the State 

 of Massachusetts. He was here- to assist in 

 making laws for the Government of this na- 

 tion. But his actual business was the peddling 

 out ten shares of stock in a place to members 

 of Congress. 



" In this letter of Mr. Ames to McComb, 

 dated January 25, 1868, he goes into a detail 

 of his transactions in Washington. He says : 



1 have assigned, so far as I have gone, four from 

 Massachusetts, one from New Hampshire, one Dela- 

 ware, one Tennessee, one Ohio, two Pennsylvania, 

 one Indiana, one Maine ; and I have three to place, 

 which I wish to put where they will do most good to 

 us. I am here on the spot, and can better judge 

 where they shall go. 



" Further on he says : 



The fifty per cent, increase on the old stock I want 

 for distribution here, and soon. 



" In another letter, two days after that, a let- 

 ter dated January 30, 1868, after speaking about 

 his distribution of stock, he says : 



I have used this where it will do most good to us, I 

 think. In view of King's letter andWashburnc's move 

 here, I go in for making our bond dividend in full. 



" In another letter, written nearly a month 

 later, February 22, 1868, the same letter in 

 which he speaks about the value of the Credit 

 Mobilier stock as three hundred and eighty or 

 four hundred dollars per share, he says: 



I want that $14,000 increase of the Credit Mobilier 

 to n:]\ liore. We want more friends in Congress; 

 and if a man will look into the law (and it is difficult 

 to get them to do it unless they have an interest to 

 do so) he cannot help being convinced that we should 

 not be interfered with. 



" It might very naturally be supposed that a 

 man who has some knowledge about the value 

 of money, who is not at all averse to petting 

 and having his share of it, would not sell stock 



