The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1874-04-23
Parsons aud Garfield.

From the Chicago Tribune.
The disclosure at Washington, in
the District of Columbia Investigation,
involve two members of Congress
from Ohio, and it will require some
further explanation to satisfy the pub
lie that others have not shared in the
plunder. The facts are these: In 1873
Mr.. George r. Chittenden, of this city,
made overtures to De Golyer & Nc
Clelland to obtain large paving con-
tracts for them from the Board of
Public Works of the District of Col
umbia, in consideration of one-third
of the profits. The agreement was
made, and contracts were subse-
quentIy let to De Golyer Sc McClel-.
land for laying 200, 900 yards of wood-s
en-block pavement at SO so a yard.
Chittenden, after obtainitg the con-
tracts, returned to Chichago and de-
manded 100000. This claim he re-
'duced to S97, 900, which he received
in cash and notes. Chittenden rep
resented that the $4,000 was, in part,
to pay expenses at Washington. Part
of the agreement was that Chittenden
was to stand between the contractors
and the Board of Public Works in
case of any trouble. They laid a con-
siderable amount of the pavement,
when it was reported in July, 1873, to
Governor Shepherd, that like work
with the same material in Chicago had
proved failure, and that, in fact, the
s.ironized" process was a humbug.
The Governor thereupon ordered a
discontinuanee of work under the
contracts with De Golyer 81 McClel-
land. When the work was thus abb
ruptly suspended the contractors had
on hand material sufficient to COM
plete 81, 900 yards of pavement, which
would prove TO them a total loss.
They urged the Local Government to
allow them to use up this material,
but that was refused. As last effort
they induced Mr. Charles B. Farewell,
of this city, to go to Washington, in
September, 1873, just on the eve of the
panic. He laid the case before Gov
ernor Shepherd, who consented that
the contractors might go on and use
up the material they had on hand.
The testimony of Mr.. r. @. Parsons,
the present member of Congress from
Cleveland, is to the effect that he was
retained by Mr.. George r. Chittenden
to argue before the Board of Public
Works the superiority of the DeGol-
yer patent for wooden-block pave
ments. Before the Board made the
final award he was called home to
Cleveland, and engaged General Gar
field. at that time Chairman of the
House Committee on prepriatioHs,
to act in his place. This was about
the adjournment of Congress in 1872
Subsequently, upon the award of the
contracts, he received his fee from
Chittenden and paid Garfield. The
books of De Goiyer Sc McClelIen show
that the $97, 900 paid by them to Chit
tenden was thus recorded: Geo. r.
Chittenden, in notes, $4,000; 'tR. g.
p" CEichard g. Parsons), $4,000; s'R.
G. P." Orchard q. Parsons), $5,000r
IS. w. b." Is. W. Brown, $4,000.
The Second payment to Parsons is
supposed to be the fee paid to General
Garfield. The name IS. w. Brown"
is a fictitious one, and it will remain
with Mr.. Chittenden to explain when
he gets to Washington who that per-
sonage is.
Dates are important in this case.
Mr.. Richard G. Parsons was at the
time of this transaction Marshal of
the Supreme Court of the United
states, According to the evidence
General Garfield made his argument
for the De GoIyer contracts after the
of Congress, in June,
1872, just after the Philadelphia Con-
vention. He was then Chairman of
the House Committee on Appropria-
tions, aud in the succeeding winter a
million of dollars was appropriated
for paving streets in Washington
Mr.. Parsons was then candidate
for Congress in Cleveland, and was
duly elected in November, 1872, and,
though he drew pay from March, 1873,
did not take his seat until December
last. He was not in fact member of
Congress when he rendered this SER
service to De Golyer /; he was a candi-
date only, and went before the peo-
pie with DeGolyer's $4,000 in his
pocket and told the people that par
ty which had abolished slavery and
carried on the war to successful
conclusion was undoubtedly able to
carry on this Government.
We have no idea what explanation
Mr.. Chittenden will make, nor why
he selected Mr.. Parsons at the high
figures of $1,000 to prove that the
sironizedp wood was better than anv
other. Mr.. Parsons had no particular
ability or reputation that would re-
commend him at such a price. But
Mr.. Parsons was an Ohio politician,
an active man, having influential re-
lations with the party in power, and
it would pay to employ Mr.. Parsons,
and thereby secure his influence, par
ticularly as other persons could not
be employed directly. That Mr..
Chittenden acted wisely and discreet
ly in selecting Parsons is best shown
in his success. His shreWdness. will,
perhaps, be further illustrated when
it is made known who s. w. Brown
is, and why 1t was necessary to pay
him $4,000.
The case against General Garfield is
dark. Whatever smirching he may
have sustained in the Credit Mobilier
was trivial compared with this. APP
pearin9 before the District officers ar
guing that they should give the con-
tract for paving to one firm which
was to pay him $1,000, to the exclu-
sion of other firms which were to pay
him nothing, appearing thus as coun-
sci for a contractor when he was
Chairman of the Committee which
was to grant or withhold any appro-
priation by Congress for paving at
all, Mr.. Parsons escapes legal respon-
sihility hecanse he was not at The
time a Member of Congress. Never
theless, taking town-meeting view
of his case, is is clear that Mr.. Chit
tenden, in employing Parsons, thought
he was hiring something else than
his knowledge of -'ironized" wood.
in Government Expenditure. |
The subjoined paragraphs are from
the regular report of the proceedings
of the national House of, Representa-