The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-07-23
AcAnrAIGx RooRRAcK squELcuED.
A QuietuS TO That Alleged Decision Of
Justice SWayne.

Justice SwAyne.
The Democratic press have been parad
ing through their columns for the last few
days what purported to be deliverance
Of Justice SwaYne Of the United States
Supreme Court in regard to the De
Golyer pavement case that reflected on
General Garfield. To show how entirely
bogus is the language imputed to Justice
Swsyne we quote the following exPlana'
ton from Washington on the subject:
WASHINGTON, July 2l.-The latest at.
tack upon General Garfield by the Demo-
cratic press consists Of the allegation that
a case involving the parties TO the De Col
yer pavement contract in this city was car
ried before the Supreme Court Of the
United States, and that Justice Swayne
delivered decision last October in which
he declared that the agreement with Cen
eral Garfield to pay him s. 600 for arguing
the merits Of the pavement before the
Board OF Public Works was sale Of Of.
fetal influence. The story is devoid OF
truth. The facts are these: Atthe May term
OF the Cook County Circuit Court in Chi.
cago, in 1875, before Judge Farwell, Geo.
r. Chittenden. lobbyist, who had been
employed by the firm OF De Golyer & Nc.
Clelland TO obtain paving contracts for
them in Eastern cities, brought suit against
them, because, as he claimed, they had
not kept an agreement to pay him one
third OF the profits on all contracts so oh.
tanned, which would entitle him 10 about
100000 on the contracts secured
in Washington. Defendants disputed pay
ment OF the money on the ground that the
contract was void on its face, and that it
was obtained by plaintiff by improper in.
huence. J. R. Doolittle, who appeared as
counsel for defendants, submitted, among
other points, the statement that in similar
case decided in the Supreme Court in the
previous October, Judge Swayne had held
that contract for purely professional ser.
vices is valid, but such services are sepa-
rated by broad line from personal solici-
tation and from official influence. "The
agreement with Gen. Garfield, a member
oE Congress" Mr.. Doolittle rent on 10 say, TO
pay him five Thousand dollars as con.
tingent fee for procuring contract which
was itself made to depend upon future
appropriation by Congress, which appro'
priation could only come from a commit
Tee Of which he was chairman, WAS sale
OF official influence which no vail can cov-
er against the plainest principles OF pub.
lie corruption" and more OF the same
sort. This language is now travelling
through the Democratic papers all over
the country as part OF deliverance from
the highest judiciary by Justice STayne,
while in point OF fact no such language ,ras
eer employed by Justice Sruyne. The case IN
q,laiion ncrer came before him, and le much
quoted ccuure of General Gafe'd ras only
part of ialryer's plea in matter decided fee
years ago.
As is generally known, James R. boo.
little is a prominent Democratic lawyer OF
Chicago. He was the counsel for De
Goyler &:Co. who were resisting the claim
of.tAeir agent, and he it was who used this
language in his plea. Justice Swayne never
used it. 1t was Democratic lawyer
working for fee from his clients, who
used it. The impntatiou OF it to one of
the Justices oi the Supreme Court is
simply an nnscrupulous forgery, concoct-
ed for partisan purposes, and has no
foundation in truth whatever.