Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-11-10
GARFIELD AND DE GOLYER.
AN INTERESTING AND OFFICIAL
ACCOUNT OF THE FRAUDU-
LENT FEE


LENT FEE.
STATEMENT or A FORMER MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF PUBLIC wORKs--ANAL-
oGOUs CAsEs-sIMMoNs AND JOHN
p. HALE-sTATUTE COVERING
THE MATTER.
fFrom the Chicago Times.l
A former member of the Board of
Public Works gives a very interesting
account Of tho Dc Golyer case from
the official standpoint This member
Of the Board says that not only was
the De Golyer contract awarded upon
the request OF General Garfield but
that this request was preferred before
Boss Shopperd only. General Garfield
never appeared before the Board at
all. No brief in the case was ever
filed. At the meeting Of the Board
afterward this member Of tho Board
often protested against the De Golyer
contract IL will be remembered that
therc was in all contracts made with
the Board of Public Works a clause
giving the Board authority to cancel
c;nn, %S ,IN corso TSis ,oobe ~, o thn I Road
ig,oS o ,Lo, 6is 'o1sa ",sat VI sLoIT sbo J' ha
onn'IIoa S,iJ bo. a,rSis naran,oDt
is a swindIe from beginning to the end.
1t is absolutely worthless. It is down
right robbery TO allow rotten contracts
,.or, Ion,,no,o and no,nrolly nod q
scnsotion in fbo Roorl mcc,ing Tbo
yhoIo ofToir ,yos oniotcd bowevor nv,
a f,y ,yords from Ross Sbenbord Sa;1
hc-oGon,Icmcn II Is idle to discnss
tbo merits of tbis contract or novc.
msnt II was g,vcn obsolntclv os a
ncrsono favor 10 General GSr6old
IIo ia Chairman Of tbo Horsc Con.
m;,tse on Annro,riotions Irtbot con.
,raot ia annnlied we win nave endless
trouble in getting new appropriations
Some will fail utterly. We cannot af.
ford to raise our hands in this matter"
After this very plain talk from tho
boss. there was nothing more 10 be
said. The member of the Board who
related the above incident IS resident
of this city. and will make affidavit TO
the above if necessary.
This De Golver case il the blacl,est
thing charged against General Gar
field. for the concurrent testimony at
WASHINGTON runs all one way. He
was pad the $4,000 for his influence
in obtaining the contract from Boss
Shepherd. The latter gave the con.
tract for the putting down of a pave.
ment he knew TO be worthless. in or
der to make the obtaining of his an.
preparations for the District an oasy
matter According TO the testimony
of n member of the Board the contract
would have been apnuIled had il not
been for the certainty that il would
place General Garfield in an antaron.
istic position to tho Board and its an
propriations In view of this cas-, and
the continued employment of members
of Congress as ATTORNEYS to procure
contracts and the like. il NAV bo in.
terestinc to call to mind two sections
of the revised statutes that do not very
often sec the light of day. The frat
is as follows:
SECTION 1,7Sl. Every member of
Congress or any officer or agent of the
Government. who. directly or indirect
", takes, receives. or agrees to receive
any money. property or other valua.
bic consideration whatever from anv
person. for procuring or aiding TO pro.
cure any contract, Office. or place from
the Government, or any department
thereof or from any officer of the
United States. for any person what.
ever or for giving any sueh contract
Office or place to any person wbomso.
ever. and every person who. directly
or indirectly. offers or aqreos 10 give
or gives or 6estows any money. prop.
erty, or other valuable consideration
whatever for the procuring or aiding
to procure any such contract Office or
place, and every member of Congress
who, directly or indirectly. takes ro.
ccives, or agrees to receive any money