During that afternoon, while I was in the management of an appropriation bill in the House, word was brought to me that Mr. Ames, on coming out of the committee-room, had declared, in the hearing of several reporters, that 'Garfield was in league with Judge Black to break him down; that it was $400, not $300, that he had let Garfield have, who had not only never repaid it, but had refused to repay it.' Though this report of Mr. Ames' alleged declaration was subsequently found to be false, and was doubtless fabricated for the purpose of creating difficulty, yet there were circumstances which, at the time, led me to suppose that the report was correct. One was, that Judge Black (who was McComb's counsel in the suit against Ames) was present at my examination, and had drawn out on cross-examination my opinion. of the nature of Mr. Ames' relation to the Credit Mobilier company and the Union Pacific company; and the other was, that in Mr. Ames' testimony of December 17, he had said, 'He (Mr. Garfield) had some money from me once, some three or four hundred dollars, and called it a loan.' The sum of four hundred dollars had thus been mentioned in his testimony, and it gave plausibility to the story that he was now claiming that, as the amount he had loaned me. Supposing that Mr. Ames had said what was reported, I was deeply indignant; and, with a view of drawing from him a denial or retraction of the statement, or, if he persisted in it, to pay him twice over, so that he could no longer say or pretend that there existed between us any unsettled transaction, I drew some money from the office of the sergeant-at-arms, and, going to my committee-room, addressed him. the following note: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Sir-I have just been informed, to my utter amazement, that, after coming out of the committee-room. this morning, you said in the presence of several reporters that you had loaned me four, instead of three, hundred dollars, and that I had not only refused to pay you, but was aiding your accusers to injure you in the investigation. I shall call the attention of the committee to it, unless I find I am misinformed. To bring the loan question to an immediate issue between us, I inclose herewith $400. If you wish to do justice to the truth and to me, you will return it, and correct the alleged statement, if you made it. If not, you will keep the money, and thus be paid twice and more. Silence on your part will be a confession that you have deeply wronged me. Hon. OAKES Ames. J. A. GARFIELD. After the House had adjourned for the day, I found, on returning to my committee-room, that I had omitted to inclose the note with the money, which had been sent to the House post-office. I immediately sought Mr. Ames to deliver the note, but failed to find him at his hotel, or elsewhere, that evening. Early the next morning, January 15, I found him, and delivered the note. He denied having said, or claimed, any of the things therein set forth, and wrote on the back of my letter the following: WASHINGTON, January 15, 1873. Dear Sir:-I return you your letter with inclosures, and I utterly deny ever having said that you refused to pay me, or that it was four, instead of three hundred dollars, or that you was aiding my accusers. I also wish to say that there has never been any but the most friendly feelings between us, and no transaction, in the least degree, that can be censured by any fair-minded person. I herewith return you the four hundred dollars as not belonging to me. Hon. J. A. GARFIELD. Yours, truly, OAKES AMES. From inquiry of the reporters, to whom the remarks were alleged to have been made, I had become satisfied that the story was wholly false; and when Mr. Ames added his denial, I expressed to him my regret that I had written this note in anger and upon false information. I furthermore said to Mr. Ames that, if he had any doubt in reference to the repayment of the loan, I wished him to keep the money. He refused to keep any part of it, and his conversation indicated that he regarded all transactions between us settled. Before I left his room, however, he said he had some memoranda which seemed to indicate that the money I had of him was on account of stock; and asked me, if he did not, some time in 1868, deliver to me a statement to that effect. I told him if he had any account of that sort, I was neither aware of it, nor responsible for it; and thereupon I made substantially the following statement: Mr. Ames, the only memoranda you ever showed me was in 1867-'68, when speaking to me of this proposed sale of stock, you figured out, on a little piece of paper, what you supposed would be realized from an investment of $1,000; and, as I remember, you wrote down these figures: 1,000 1,000 400 2,400 as to the amounts, you expected to realize. While saying this to Mr. Ames, I wrote the figures, as above, on a piece of paper lying on his table, to show him what the only statement was, he had ever made to me. It is totally false that these figures had any other meaning than that I have here given; nor did I say anything, out of which could be fabricated such a statement. In his testimony of January 29, Mr. Ames gives a most remarkable account of this interview. Remembering the fact, by him undisputed, that there had been no communication between us on this subject, for more than four years before this investigation began, notice the following: Q. Did you have any conversation, in reference to the influence this transaction would have on 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. That is, he makes me, on the 15th of January, 1873, express the fear that this transaction will injure me in the election of October, 1872. Again: 2. You may state whether, in conversation with you, Mr. Garfield claims, as he claims 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 did claim it with you; what was said?* A. I cannot remember half of it. He [Garfield] stated, 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 do not remember. * * * Q. How long after that transaction [the offer to sell Credit Mobilier stock] did he go to Europe?A. I believe it was a year or two. * * 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. I should think not, if this testimony is an example of his memory! It is known to thousands of people, that I went to Europe in the summer of 1867, and at no other time. I sailed from New York on the 13th of July, 1867, spent several days of August, in Scotland, with Speaker Blaine and Senator Morrill of Vermont, and returned to New York on the 9th of the following November-three weeks before the beginning of the session of Congress. The books of the sergeant-at-arms of the House show that, before going, I had assigned several months' pay, in advance, to a banker, who had ad |