The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-06-17

rr,s,,ons that was sought. he also exhib-
nod many letters 10 the Glover commitiee,
irvesticatIug the fraud, from the agedt
f,hi,tendeu 10 their firm IN Chicago Thilc
The negotiations were pending, shordng the
imneratlye necessity Of securing Chairman
Garfield at whatever cost WITHIN the slO0,-
600 furnished By the firm.
Flom among these letteis The following
extracts will be found sufficiently Significant
To explain the purpose Ia view. Here is
an extract from note al George X. Chit
tendcn, dated May 30, 1879, at the Airing
ton, Washington city:
"Tuesday afternoon Persons arrived.
We shan get 100, and how much more Is
nyohicn.atlcaI. The induence Of General
;nrscN has been secured by yesterdays,
| Iasz aiyht's. and to.dsy's labors. He holds
Inc nurse.strings OF the United States, Is
chairman OF the Committee on Appropr'a'
tsons. and the strongest man In Congress
md with our friends, my demand Is to-day
ROT less than 100, 900 yards more-S2o0,Ooo
in ALI. The connection Is complete. 4 can
hardly realize we have General GARFIELD
with ms. II Is rare success and very graft
fyinr. rs an the appropriations for the Dis
| trict must come through him."
The following kilograms speak ior 'hem'
From Chittenden to McLelland at abb
solutely necessary, l have agreed to pay
ls1fs.OCo in cash, we 10 have entire con-
tract; 100000 yards at $3.50 per yard.m
Telegram from Chittenden to McLellaLd,
dated June %, 1872:
"Thirty thousand cash paid I'VE already I;
three thousand at fifteen days; bve at one
month, five at two months, twenty nc Iour'
| twenty at five, twenty ut nine months, WIN
| interest at per cent. VIII take contract
home with me tonight for 100000 yards !;
plenty to follow. We must act promptly.
Answer quickly"
Telegram from Chi,tenden to McLelland,
dated April 8, 1872:
"Tbe Dents and that crowd DO not
amount TO the first thing. Governor Shep-
herd Is my right bower now in place OF
Huntington. Don't whisper word; out
one soul knows it,"
Colonel Il. II. Nickerson, owner OF the
ronizing process, upon which the DeGolyer
patent pavement Is based, testified before
the real-estate pool committee that he knew
all the parties connected with the De-
Golyer and McLelland contract; was upon
intimate terms with all the partners; knew
persons were employed by their agents,
whose names were purposely kept secret,
ostensibly TO influence the Board OF Pub
lie Works to give large paving contract
to the firm.
The testimony before the committee was
conclusive that General Garfield, as chair
man of the Committee upon Appropriations,
bad received portion OF the 100000 cor
ruprion fund furnished by DeG0lyer Nc
LELAND TO influence the Board OF Public
Works 70 give said firm paving contract
for 100000 yards OF wood pavement, bis
share being contingent upon the Aforesaid
award by the Board. By the express terms
of the award DeGolyer d McLeIland were
10 await an appropriation by Congress
before being paid, Garfield, chairman OF the
Committee on Appropriations, "holding
the purse-strngs OF the Treasury"
Garfield. under his official oath, stated
that he filed brief, or opinion, with the
Board OF Public Works and made an argu.
ment before the Board in his professional
character, and II the parties in interest in
tended to secure bis official services for the
insignificant amount proposed, they did not
in any manner communicate their purpose
to him. Therefore he (Garfield) did not
think he was bribed.
Colonel Glover requested Mr.. Nickerson,
who was familiar with the whole subject, 10
cross-examine General Garfield.
Question by Mr.. NicSerson: General
Garfield. did you file with the Board OF
Public Works of this District brief, or
opinion-writteD, printed, or otherwise
upon the subject OF the DeGOlyer patent
pavement" [After Mr.. Garfield had at
tempted to evade a reply, Mr.. Nickerson
required a categorical answer.l Answer:
81 could not say did"
nuoot;on. hid Won af INV timn opppar
before the Board and make any argument
whatever?" Answer: 81 do not remem-
Der that did: but did speak to Governor
Shepherd on the subject, giving my opinion
in its favor"
Question "GovernOr Shepherd has tes-
titled that you once spoke to him casually
on the subject. How much cash did you
receive from DeGOIyer & McLeIianu, or
either OF them, or their agents, at any time
for your agency in the procurement OF this
particular contract?" Answer: "Five
thousand dollars"
Fifteen days after the adjournment OF
Congress Garfield sought to interpolate into
the package containing the evidence taken
before Colonel Glover's committee an en-
pdrte affidavit obtained from the notorious
Chittenden ante-dating it so as to appear as
having been given before the committee,
exonerating Garfield from having received
the $4,000 bride from the agent Of DeG0l-
yer in his official capacity. Garfield, ac-
companied by his prottg< CbIttendeD,
sought to influence Colonel Giover's clerk
after the committee had gone home to I'M
seal the evidence and surreptitiously place
the forged affidavit with The official evidence
OF his guilt.
In regard to the other charge, the follow
ing from the New York Herald may be
sufficient
"What is charged is that he had Credit
Mobilier stock to the amount OF two thou
sand dollars; that he had never paid nor
expected to pay cent for It; that the divi-
dends on other stock which went with it
were so enormous that they paid for the
Credit obilier stock and left a surplus of
three hundred and twenty.Dine dollars,
which was paid over to Mr.. Garfield, making |
the actual bride two thousand dollars OF |
stock, which cost him nothing, and the /
surplus which he received in mo- |
ney. When the exposure came he |
threw up and repudiated his stock; |
but had there been no exposure he |
might have retained it. His acceptance Of
the surplus OF dividends beyond what was |
necessary to pay for the stock looked like an |
that the stock was bis. |
There must be some better explanation than |
has yet been presented before the country |
will think otherwise. We are willing and |
anxious TO see defence which is not as
damaging as the original charge. Will any |
contend that il the 1929 which |
Mr.. Garfield received from Cakes Ames was
4 surplus of dividends on his stock he is fit
10 be President? IL, as Mr.. Garfield tried |
10 have it appear at the time, it was bor-
rowed money, why did he borrow so singu- |