New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-17
THE DISTRICT INVESTIGATION.
FURTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF
DE GoLYER AND M'CLELLAN-WHAr HAS BEEN
PROVED THUS FAR.
N TELEGRAPH To THE TRIBUNB.1

PROVED THUS FAR
lbY TELEGRAPH To THE TRIBUNB.l
WASHINGTON April 16.-Little by little the secret
history of the method of obtaining contracts from
the Board of Public Works of this city leaks out.
BENJAMIN NickeTsOn, witness examined to-day,
told the investigating Committee good deal about
the operations of De Golyer and Mcclellan, the
Chicago contractors and their representative,
Chittenden, and left the impression that he
knew great deal more than he told
Mr. Nickerson was working in conjunction with
Chittenden and knew about the latters operations
He knew that Chittenden depended upon Mr.
Huntington the cashier of the First National Bank,
and the closest friend of Gov. Cooke, Alex X.
Shepherd, HaIlet KilbOurne, and other members OF
the Ring, and was informed that the whole matter
had been arranged before Mr. Huntington's death
After that event the issue was for time doubtful,
until Chittenden had approached other persons,
who were very influential.
Mr. Nickerson supposed that Col. Kirkland, the
man who got DeGOlyer and Mcclellan notes for
$4,000 was the who took Mr.. Huntington's
place but he was informed that he was only mid
dleman. Chittenden often mentioned Gov Cooke
as his particular friend and wrote to his principals
in such way that they inferred that Gov.
Cooke was interesting himself in their behalf.
Mr. Nlckerson's testimony to-day disclosed also the
names of several new men who were at one time or
another working in De Golyer and McClellan's
behalf Among these were the firm of Dent q Page,
the first named partner being Judge Dent, now
dead, and Gen. Dent, at that time on duty at the
White House. Mr. Nlckerson admitted that all of
these gentlemen were working In his behalf, but
that no money was paid them.
Enough testimony has been taken in regard to this
contract to show first, that the scale of prices fixed
by the Board for paving high that contractors
were able and were induced to use immense sums OF
money in obtaining contracts. Second: That the men
into whose hands these large sums of money first
went were mddlemen, who paid the greater portion
of it over to Others who have not yet been dscOv-
cred Third 1t cannot for moment be supposed that
the $4,000 paid in this case was paid for
any ordinary services. De Goyer and Mcclellan had
previously agreed to divide with Chittenden the
profits of contracts that he obtained for Them and
they would not as business men, have paid, in addi-
tion $4,000, unless they had known what was to
become of it. Fourth 1t is not pretended that
Kirtlaud who got S72,oOO. made any written or oral
argument before the Board in favor of the contract
Chittenden must have known what Kirkland
was doing and must have been satisfied
with the use he made OF tho money.
Fifth Contracts that are honestly awarded never
have so much that it is suspicious about their award
and the very TACT tnat sucn large buis Were 10 DC
realized from contracts, and that such large sums
were paid to obtain them, condemns the whole
system that was adopted. if it does not absolutely
prove corruption.
Gen. Bingham, ex-Postmaster of Philadelphia
who had contract for paving K-st. in this city,
gave some very interesting testimony IN regard to
demand made upon him in 1872 by Mr.. Foley, MAJ
aging editor of The National Republican of this city,
for money with which to buy out The philadelphia
Post and make it Grant organ. Mr.. Foley based
his demand on the fact that Bingham had made a
great deal of money out of his office and out of
| tracts from the Board Of Public Works.