Schuyler Colfax

The genial ex Vice-President, wbo has reüred from public life, is now taking pleasure in traveling about tlie country, seeing it. lecturing aiul renewing oíd acquaintances. With liis wonderful faculty of remembering faces and ñames, he seldom forgets one he has met, and the magnetisin of his friendship is such that one meeting him and hearing his conversation could not, on the other hand forget him. Ve believe Mr. Colfax was misunderstood and most deeply wronged in the Credit Mobilier investigation, but for all that the milk of human kindncss was not soured. He has not been brooding over the injustice done him, but has ever maintained his bright and cheerful.disposition. Although he has repeatedly been urged again to enter upon the duties of public life, he ahvays declines, saying he is happier in lus retirement. However, our wish is father to the hope that he may yet be induced to lend his services in sonie vvay towards the directing of the aftairs of State. Recently a friend in Lockport, N. Y., wrote au editorial afflrming hls belief in Mr. Colfax's innocence of the charge of receiving money for his influence, and he received a private letter from Mr. C. which was published in the Lockport Journal, and copled by the New York Tribune and other papers over the country. We know it will be of interest to our readers, and reproduce it. The editorial to which my attention has been drawn, while saying correctly thatl will not consent to return to public life, also expresses couiidence that the people believe in my integrity- confidence of which I have had so many gratifying proofs in my independent and enjoyable lectuilng lile. As to the Credit Mobilier stock, to which yon alinde, I can only repeat that I never had a share of it, nor a dollar of its dividends, having voluntarily abandoned fouryears before the public scandal an incomplete contrsct to take some of it. Mr. Ames testitied that he was holding its stock in trust for General Garfield, W. D. Kelley and myself (which all three of us der.ied uuder oath), and that three initial checka he produced, two for $329 and one for $1,200, represented dividends paid to us on it, but he presented no receipts from either of us; had no mdorsement by either of us on these initial checKs and no witness to their pretended payinent; while we all swore we had never seeu them and had never received the amounts named in the 'checks as dividends,and the cashier of the Sergeantat-Arnis swore to his belief that he had paid these very initial checks to Ames hiinself. And John T. Drew, a lawyer of Vermont, when he returned from Éurope after Congress had adjourned. averred that he saw the $1,200 Ames drew as a check to S. C. or bearer, paid by Ames to another man, with whom he had been talking on other claims. As the estáte of Mr. Ames has since been settled, and as none of the stock he said he was holding in trust for us bas been found among his papers, it is as evident as au axiomatic truth that tliere was no such stock, and that however confused hls memory might have been by the great excitement of the period, the three initial checks, so different from all the rest, represented abandoned stock on which he had himself collected the dividends. But having no fear of God's judgment upon my integrity and truthfuluess in this matter, I on ly refer to it hure thtis brieily because of your higliiy appreciated editorial.