The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1880-08-06
Gareeld and the pecolyer charge

The Chicago Inter-Ocean gives the
following history OF the DeGolyer mat
ter.
IL Is charged that In the year 1872
General Garfield received counsel fee |
of So 900 from DeGolyer and McClel- |
land, the owners of a patent for wood |
pavement, which was laid down at q
great cost in the streets of the city OF
Wasl lgton, under contract with the
government of the District of Column
bia; that he did no counsel work in the
case, aud that the money was paid for
no other purpose than 10 influence his
conduct rs member of the Congress
by which an appropriation for this wood
pavement was made, and especially ms
Chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priations of the House of Representa-
lives. 1t is to be observed that while
this charge has been many times repeat
ed, the evidence OH which il Is founded
has been forthcoming very slowly. The
reason of this reluctance is clear from
the report of the Investigating Commit
tee. The evidence has not been fur
nished because it does not prove the
case. Before this committee, in Febru-
airy, 1877, Garfield testified that he new
or knew or saw DeGolyer or McClel-
land, but was retained by a friend, a
lawyer, who desired him to make a
brief and argument in the case for him !;
and that, instead of doing nothing to
earn the fee, he made long and labo-
rious examination of this particular pat
ent and many others, and prepared an
elaborate brief. Garfield further show
ed and this is the only important fact
in the whole case-that Congress did
not make any appropriation TO pay for
the pavement, and was not asked to
make any, and that therefore the Off
cial conduct of Garfield could not be
affected by the fee because he could
have no official relations to the matter.
The contract for the pavement was
made by the Board of Public Works,
and was paid for by general loan al
ready authorized by law and by tax
or assessment levied by the govern
ment of the District of Columbia-just
as local improvements in other cities
are paid for by the property which they
are supposed to benefit. Congress
might be called upon to meet
general deficiencies in the revenues OF
the district, but this contingency was
remote, and did not form condition
of the DeGolycr ond McClelland con-
tract. With this only the Board Of
Public Works was concerned. Gar.
fields story was supported by the testi.
mony of Commissioner Shepherd be-
fore the committee. He says that Con
gross was not in session when the con
tract was awarded, and further: "W,
had ample appropriations for sill thu
work we had awarded, including that
without regard TO any appropriation
from Congress. All these contract
f were awarded on the basis of the foui
million loan, and the assessments b,
the city which were authorized by tina
law. They were not at all contingen
, upon Congressional appropriation.
Even Benjamin II. Nicholson, who tri
cd hard to convict Garfield before tn
committee, really supported his story
and was constrained to admit that N
r. appropriation was made directly 70
: the pavement by Congress, and that th
/ only connection of Congress with th
n matter was its assumption afterward o
some of the certificates of indebtedness
n of the Board of Works. 1t is to be HOP
ed that the last has been heard of tn
i back pay, Credit Mobilier, and Deco
!. yer charges, but that, oflcourse, is i
. vain. We shall continue TO hear ther
v long after they have been refuted, an
i until the I'd of November. 1t is fortu
= nate, however, that the official record
!. upon which it is pretended they ar
q founded furnish SO cflcctual a contr,
y dictiOn of them.