Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1880-07-08
GarlieId's De GOlyer Fee.
from the Missouri Republican.

From the Missouri Republican.
The De Golyer transaction of Mr.. Gar
field is so strong against him that thu
Republicans have found it necessary t.
to reproduce speech made by him il
1874 at Warren, Ohio. in attempting
explanation in the matter. It is the
very best attempted defence that car
be made, for it comes from the accused
gentleman himself; but whether it is
satisfactory to the extent of proving
that Mr.. Garfield is the right sort
of person to be President of the United
States, or not, let the facts show.
| 1t is not denied that Mr.. Garfield &C
cepted the large fee of $1,000 for urging
the District Board of Works to accept
and adopt the De Golyer wood pave
ment, he being, at the time, member
of Congress, and Chairman of the
House Appropriations Committee-a
committee whose members had great
influence over the corrupt District au-
thorities; but it is claimed that Mr.. Gar
field acted simply as lawyer, and that
he earned the fee by fair and open
work. Says Mr.. Garfield, in his War
rem speech:
81 did it in open daylight. I have never
been able to understand how anybody has
seen anything in that on which to base an
attack on me. say / am to-day Intellectually
incapable of understanding the track of a
mans mind who sees in this any ground for
attacking me. I made the argument. There
were two patents concerned in that pavement
itself; there were some forty different wood
pavements proposed; and to carefully and
analytically examine all the relative merits
of those was no small work. Mr.. Parsons was
to get fee provided he was successful, and
not any if he was not successful, and hence
the sum offered was large-a contingent fee, as
every lawyer knows.''
Parsons was the original attorney in
the case, and it is pretended that, hav-
ing been called away from Washington
City just at the time the argument was
to be made, he employed Mr.. Garfield
to attend to it for him. But it is ex-
traordinary that Parsons should have
been called away, and should have
gone away, just at the moment when
his 5000 fee was to be earned; and 1t is
extraordinary also, after having had
charge of the case from the beginning,
he should give Mr.. Garfield the larger
portion of his fee for the trifling service
rendered by the latter. Parsons was
to get $4,000; of this he gave his friend
Garfield $4,000, reserving only $4,000
for himself. This singular division of
the profits the Warren speech falls sig
nally short of explaining.
Again: Mr.. Garfield says: II made
the argument" How did he make it?
Before the Board of Works. in open
session? No. 1t is not shown that he
ever appeared before the Board. In
his own testimony he fails to assert
positively either that he met the Board
in open session, or filed the brief which,
he pretends, cost him SO much labor.
The following testimony bears on this
point;
"Mr. Nickerson: I understand you to say,
Mr.. Garfield, that you prepared brief after
Mr.. Parsons went away, and that you filed it
with the Board of Public Works; is there such
a brief on FLEA
"Mr. Garfield My impression is that filed
1t, though was not certain. 1 know that 1
stated to the Board Of Public Works the
points in the case.
'Mr. Nickerson: You called upon MIR. Shep-
herd, know.
''Mr. Garfield: Well, 1 called upon the other
members of the Board and stated the merits of
the case, and my impression is that the brief
was filed. / know made very full and care
full brief.
'Mr. Nickerson: Are you certain that you
filed it with anybody?
s'Mr. Garfield: think did, but 1 would not
say positively that did.
s'The Chairman: Did you make an argu-
ments
"Mr Garfield: made careful study of the
case and stated the points to the members of
the Board.
"Mr. Nickerson: Did you ever meet the
Board collected together as Board, and
make any statement or argument on the sub
ject?
''Mr. Garfield: don't know whether all the
members of the Board were there or not"
Bearing in mind that this is Mr.. Gar
fields own statement before the inves-
tigation committee, and that he puts
the very best possible face on the mat
ter that he can, it becomes clear that
Mr.. Garfield rendered very trifling
service as lawyer for his $4,000 fee.
He did not make an argument before
the Board of Works; he did not even
meet the Board in open session; if he
made brief in favor of the De Golyer
pavement, he did not file it. He can
only say that he had an "impressionu
that he filed it. The facts are that he
acted not as lawyer, but as Chairman
of the House Committee on Appropria-
tons in the transaction. AS lawyer
his services would have been nearly
worthless; but as Republican Con-
gresham and Chairman of the House