Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1875-06-16
GEN. gARFIELD.y FEE.

m" .
Among tho revelations made In the
Investigation OF tho affairs OF Boss
Shephcrd's ring In Washington the
public have NOT iorretten that 81. 900
iee Of Gen, Garfield was brought 10
light. This handsome fec was paid to
the General for an able and classical
argument which he delivered before
the board Of public works In favor Of
concrete pavements. The speech H.
self has never been published but II Is
believed to have contained all tho
learning extant on this subject. Its
effect was such that the board award,
ed to McColyer & Co., the Generals
clients, u continct for 100000 yards of
pavcmcnts at $3.50 yard, upon which
profit of 100000 was realized
Having secured for his clicnts the con.
tract, the General next, az Chairman
of the House Committee on Appro-
prations, took care to provide that
the money for the payment of the job
should bc drawn from the public treas.
ury. The transaction was FULLY cx-
planned Mt the time, and last year il
caused considerable discussion in Gen.
Garfeld's district in Ohio when he
was candidate for reelection. But
ns his constituents reelected him, tho
by greatly reduced majority, IL may
be assumed that they, at least, are of
opinion that he fairly earned his fee.
But this question of General Gar
fields fee has turned up again in an
unexpected quarter. George b. Chit
tcndcn, who secured the professional
services OF Gen. Garfield, as above
stated, was compelled to bring suit
against the contractors for his contin.
gent expenses in procuring for them
this paying iob. and the case has been
recently argued in the United States
Circuit Court at Chicago. Among
these contingent expenses which Nj.
Chittenden seeks 10 recover IL this
az 0OO gaa ,,o;d ,o Gan GarGeld Tbe
s'iVVy ''o P"" " ~, 80,
delenunnts plead that the contest Win
Chittenden is apainst sound morals
and r,l,l;o ,,,l;o,, uo, n II nooI;t
""' P"o'V Po'Vy' "o"' Dv''
Tie, IN arguing the case IN Dehnli OF
the defendants. said there was no real
d;f,aranoo Il, ,r;nc;,,lo he,yean a,,reo.
~. ~ .. :" Pl'i'N,i 80
ihehts 10 procure aVors from icSisla-
tive bodies and agreements to procure
iavors IN shape oil contracts irom
heads OF departments or othor oihcial
bodies. This contract had been oD-
famed by improper influence ven.
narheld obtained thc contract ana ms
fee, and shortly afterwards reported q
bili approprlatlng ci,Zil,ooV OUT Oh
which the contract was pad mat
the plalntlii intended 10 use inc ihiiu-
ehce oil ueh. uarneiu as u roprescn,a,
i've IN Congress ana especial'y as
Chairman OF tho Oommll'ev on ap-
priatlons, was shown rom thls ie.'eI %
10 tne ueienua,,'s' Wn'ch was Prouuocu
on inc trlai nc says
"The influence Of Gen. Garfield has been ,e'
ss,s sa ca,riss Il" nurse Of he United states
the Chairman Of the Committee on Appropha.
tions--and Is the strongest man 70 Vengie. ard
,hsu n Y ISe ooS p %oro@ace 600 ward, in an. Eve
ryihing is in the best shape, tho connections
complete, and have reasons to believe sa,'siae-
so ',. h', hS 'Sr" wc OF n. ds
irie, come from him"
The case of Nicholas p. Trist, re-
Gently decided by the Supreme Court,
covers the entire ground of the case.
II was there held that all such con.
tracts are void as against public policy.
While the meanness of the defendants
in refusing to pay the plaintiff the
money exnended by him in their in.
terest will be readily admitted, the
contract with General Garfield can be
looked unon in no other liOht than the