The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-12-04

tract Tor DeGOllyer U Oo'i vi Nh' -
from the Board of Public Works OF Che
District of Columbia, For doing this
DeGollyer & Co., paid him $4,000, In
this transaction Mr.. Gu6elts opPoln-
ents charge him vita having corIupt'y |
sold his official influence for . So'Voo
bribe. Mr.. Garfield and his friends =. =
he simply acted asa lawyer, ana Seat
the money was a Legitimate legal fee
Can this be true, with the following,
from the revised statutes of the United
States, page Sl7, enacted June IL, 1864
Sec. 1882 No Senator, Representative
9r Delegate, after his election, and dur
mo his continuance in Office, and no
head of Department or other officer or
clerk in the employ of the Government,
shall receive or agree to receive any COM
pensation whatever, directly or indirect
iy, for any services rendered or to be
rendered to any person, either by him
self or another, in relation to any pro-
ceeding, contract, claim controversy, or
other matter in which the United States
is a party, or directly on indirectly interested
before any Department, Court Martial,
Bureau, Officer, or any civil, military, or
naval commission whatever. Every
person offending against this section
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be imprisoned not more than
two wears, and fined not more than So
600, and shall moreover, by conviction
therefor, be rendered forever thereafter
incapable of holding any office of honor,
trust or profit under the Government OF
the United States.
That Mr. Garfield rendered the servi'
ces and received the money, is shown
by the testimony of his partner, Rich
ard G. Parsons, who testified before the
committee as follows:
In the spring of 1872 Il think in April)
I was retained by Mr.. Chittenden, as a
lawyer on behalfof the firm of DeGollyer
& Mcclellan of Chicago, to argue before
the Board of Public Works at Washing.
ton, the question of the superiority of
their patent for cured wood pavement,
Question by Mr.. Thurman
Was your argument on the legal gueS
tiOn9 A.-No, sir. There was no dispute
as 10 the patent, but there was an import
ant question as to which of all the pat
ents presented was the best one.
X X y X 4 X X
Before the Board had finally made its
awards l was called home to Cleveland,
and feeling great solicitude as to the re-
suit of my labors, and of course desir'
GUS of securing my fees, | called upon
Gen. Garfield and gave him q history of
the case as it then stood, and asked him
if he would act in my absence. |
said to him l had fee in the case of
importance to me, and would be glad to
share it with him. The same day, or
day after, left for Cleveland, and when
l received my fee, some considerable
time after, from my clients at Chicago,
| deposited Gen. Garfeld's to his credit
in bank, and 80 wrote him.
In addition, the fact is also admitted
by Mr.. Garfield himself, who said in his
Warren speech Sept. 10, 1875, in vindi'
cation of himself:
worked at it as faithfully as any thing
l ever worked at. did it in open day.
light. l have never been able to under
stand how anybody has seen anything
in that on which to base an attack on
me. X made the argument.
And the argument was successful, and
the $4,000 fee was paid. A 100000 job
was obtained at So so per yard for a pave
ment which cost but 81 80.
But Mr.. Garfield, in the same speech,
says in regard 70 this transaction:
1t is said by ecme that it was in some
way connected wIththe United States
Treasury. How2
Let the Appropriation Bill of March
3, 1873, answer this question. (See acts
of Congress of 1872 8, p. l54):
To re-emburEe the late corporation
of Washington for work done, &c,s 1SS,O2 70
" work Observation-Disclosures. w 1O653a 90
To complete improvement in sts. &c l9l34T 26
To re.emburse the city OF Washing
ton for impl Ovement OF the ave-
nues, 100000 90
So 22OS033 OIL
One of two conclusions becomes inev-
table. If Mr.. Garfield accepted the S.
900 fee in any other capacity than that
of a lawyer, he was guilty of accepting a
bribe, aud thus corruptly selling his Of
fetal influence. If he accepted the mon
ey as lawyer, he is liable to fine and
imprisonment under the statute given
above, and upon conviction is forever
debarred from holding office.
Will the chairman of the committee
on appropriations, who did not sell his
influence as such, but simply practiced
as lawyer, and pocketed $1,000 Of the
peoples money therefor, rise and ex'
plain by what line of defense he can es'
cape conviction under the foregoing
statute. Why ought he not 10 be IN the Pen,
itentiary instead of IN CongreS0S- Circular Of
Committee Of Independent Convention, held
al Warren, Sept, 7, 1875.
-
A NEW batch of Louisiana liars were
brought out by the Kellogg.Spoford
Senatorial contest, in progress last week.
jeremiah Blackstone, gentleman of
color and minister of the gospel, accord
ing to his testimony, and has a congre.
CATION of immense size, being nothing
less than the whole world, according to