The Iola register., 1880-06-25
Gar6eld,s Record.

cratic journals to tarnish the name Of the Re-
publican candidate for President has been made
almost ridiculous by the poverty of results.
They have, however, opened in full chorus their
attack upon what they are pleased to call his
ssrecord" AS usual in such cases they first
proceed to manufacture the record The
points of attack are termed "Credit MObilier, :"
s'Salary- Grab" and ''De GOlyer Contract
Perhaps it would be as we'll to briefly review
these matters: edit-Mobilier-Gen. Garfield
swore that he ''never subscribed for share OF
the Credit -Mobilier stock, and never received or
saw share of it.' Oakes Ames himself admit
ted that he never delivered any stock to Mr..
Garfield, never took any formal subscription,
and only claimed to have paid one paltry "divi-
dend" of $329, which was afterward paid back
It does not hold to reason that any Congressman,
much less man of National reputation like Mr..
Garfield, could be bought by a beggarly loan OF
1929. His traducers have about abandoned this
line of attack The slander exposes itself.
In regard to the "salary -Grab," the records
shows that Garfield persistently opposed in COM
mttee the rider providingfor back pay; that he
only signed the report, after it had been adopted
in spite ofhis opposition, in order that he might
as Chairman Of the Appropriation Committee,
gain control Of the general bill on the floor OF
Congress; that he Immediately covered his own
extra pay into the Treasury, and never Kept
dollar of it,: and, finally, that he was the most
active member Of the House in securing the re-
peal of the bill increasing the pay Of Congress-
men to 81, 800 per year.
The true history Of the De Golyer case, as the
facts appear from the record is as follows: In
the spring of 1872, the firm of DeGolyer & Nc
Clelland were paving contractors in Washington
and were the owners of certain patents which
they were desirous of having adopted in the Dis
trict of Columbia. They had employed as their
attorney in their business before the Board OF
Public Works, who had the letting Of the paving
contracts, R. C. Parsons, alawyero of Cleveland,
Ohio. Their case before the Board embraced
the whole question of the merits of the different
plans for wooden pavement. 1t was case In
which competition was open and free fight with
every chance for the best to win. About the lst
of June in the year named, Mr.. Parsons was
compelled by imperative private business to re-
turn home Important briefs were yet to be
made out and filed. Bear in mind, the Board
had fixed the price they would pay and the guam
open was the merits of the different kinds Of
pavement In this dilemma, Mr.. Parsons ask
ed Mr. Garfield, as personal favor, to prepare
the briefs for him.
Gen. Garfield took all the papers in the case,
after the adjournmentO Of Congress, and prepared
those briefs 1t was done openly and above
board OF the parties at interest he knew moth
ing. He did the work precisely as he would
have done anv other law business. Subsequent
Iy, he received from Mr.. Parsons, portion Of
the latter's fee.
In 1873 the affairs Of the District were investi-
gated by joint Congressional Committee. This
pavement matter was among the matters which
were inquired into. Gen. Garfield hearing
rumOr that statements derOgatory to his charac-
ter were being circulated, went to the committee
and asked that If anything connecting him with
any scandal was brought out, that he might he
notified. He was informed "that nothing had
been developed rejecting In the least upon his
course" The investigation was concluded, and
Gen. Garfield was never summoned.
In 1874, during Gen. Garfield's candidacy for
Congress in his District, one Of his constituents
wrote to Hon. j. NJ. Wilson, of Indiana, Chair
man on the part of the House of the Joint Con-
gressiOnal Committee above mentioned, and
asked him for the facts in regard to Gen. Gar
fields alleged connection.w the District af-
fairs. He received in reply the following letter:
CoSNERsv1LLE, Ind, Aug. l, s74.-HoN GEO.
W. STEELE-Dear Sir: To the request for infor-
nation as to whether or not the action of Gen.
Garfield, in connection with the affairs of the
District of Columbia, was the subject of con-
demnatiOn by the Committee that recently had
dor f1,ut
it was not; nor was there, in my opinion, any
evidence that would have warranted any unfav-
Orable criticism upon his conduct.
The facts disclosed by the evidence, SO far as
he is concerned, are briefly these:
The Board of Public Works was considering
the question as to the kind of pavements that
should be laid. There was a contest as to the
respective merits of various wooden pavements.
Golyer & McClelland patent, and being called
away from Washington about the time the hear
ing was to be had before the Board of Public
Works OH this subject, procured Gen. Garfield
to appear before the board in his stead and argue
the merits of this patent. This he did, and this
was the whole Of his connection in the matter.
It was not question as to the kind of contract
that should be made, but as to whether this par
ticular kind Of pavement should be laid. The
criticism of the committee was not upon the
parement in favor Of which Gen. Garfield argued,
but was upon the contract made with reference
to it; and there was no evidence which would
warrant the conclusion that he had anything to
do with the latter. Very respectfully, ETC.,
j. NJ. WILSON.
The whole case is reduced to the simple fact
that during vacation of Congress Gen. Garfield
did some legal work in the line his profession,
and earned fee therefor He never conceived
that there was any purpose to influence his Con-
gressional vote. He did not even know by sight
the principals in the affair. His subsequent Con-
gressional action was in direct opposition to
what it would have been had he been Influenced
by the fee which he had earned.
Why don't you try Carter's Little Liver Pills?