Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-06-23
THE DE COZ YER BUSINESS,
IMPORTANT EXCERPTS FROM THE COURT
RECORD OF THE CASE.

Robert Mcclellan ct al. May term
1875 before Farwell, Circuit Judge
No. 1881 The plaintiff, by Il. A
Storrs, Esq, brought suit against th'
defendants upon contract, by which
they agreed to pay him oncthird o
all the profits upon all paving contracts
which he would obtain for DeGolyel
and Mcclellan from Boards of Public
Works in eastern cities. The declara
ton alleged that he obtained con
tract for paving 100000 square yard
from the Board of Public Works of th'
District of Columbia, at $3.50 per yard
when it would cost only $3.50 to lay
it down; that the profits were s4OO,
900, and claimed the defendants shoulC
pay him 100000 at least.
The defendants pleaded in substance
First-That the contract was voiC
on its face.
Second-That il was obtained by
the plaintiff by improper influences
against public policy, and therefore
was void. The plea set out that il
was obtained mainly through the off
cial influence of James A. Garfield
then member of Congress and Chair
man Of the Committee en- Appropria
tions in the House Of Representatives
that Garfield was TO receive a fee o.
$4,000 for obtaining it that the con
tract contained clause for so, 900 ad
ditional square yards contingent upor
an appropriation to be made by Con
gress that by the usual course of busi
ness all bills for such appropriation
came from the committee of which
said Garfield was then Chairman that
he did subsequently report a bill ap
propriating 81, 1,24l, 900, out of which
said pavement could be paid for; and
that for his influence and services, hC
did receive the sum of $4,000.
Another plea set ont the facts above
stated and alleged that the said plain
tiff, and said Garfield, and said BoarC
of Public Works then well knew thai
ii was not the arguments of said Gar
field as lawyer, but his influence al
member of Congress having power
on the appropriations to be made, thai
the plaintiff had sought and obtained
and paid for; and therefore, the con
tract was illegal, against public policy
and void.
Theplaintiff demurred to these pleas
the defendants joined in demurrer.
The Court sustained the pleas anC
held that the contract was void al
against public policy.
Mr.. J. r. DOolittle, who appeared al
counsel for the defendants, submitted
among others the following points, IL
writing, May IA, 1875, Judge Farwel
presiding
"Fourth-The pleas are good. They
set out in substance that the contract
was obtained by the plaintiff by tb'
Board of Public Works of the Distric
of Columbia by improper influences
That the contract was in part--to tn,
amount OF 10000 square yards-upor
its face, contingent upon a future ap
preparation to be made by Congress
that the plaintiff employed James A
Garfield, then being a member of Con
gress and Chairman of the Committe,
on Appropriations Of the House 0
Representatives, agreeing to pay hin
contingent fee of $1,000, provided b,
would obtain the said contract of th,
Board of Public Works that by hi
influence and persuasion he did pro
cure the same, for which he received
the sum Of $4,000. That aiterward
bill was reported from the committe,
Of which he was Chairman, and die
pass the House, and pass Congress
and because a law, appropriating tn,
sum Of 81, ,2ll, 900 out of which tn,
payment under said contract could b,
paid for by said Board of Publ,
Works; that the plaintiff, and the de
fendant, and the said Garfield, and th,
members OF said Board of Publ,
Works well knew, at the time OF hi
said employment, and at the time o
his service in procuring said contract
that said Garfield, from his official 20
sition, did and would have a potent in
iluence in procuring the passage o
appropriation to carry such contraor
into effect, by said Board of Public
Works, and that by means of tn,
premises the said contract was, in fact
obtained by improperin influences, against
public policy, and is void.
"Fiith-It is no sufficient answer tC
say that Garfield was at the same timt
a member Of the legal profession. Hi
being n member Of Congress at the
same time, any employment as coun
sci upon contingent fec, or other
wise, to obtain contract from Boart
of public officers, dependent upon th'
future action of Congress to fulfill, L
against public policy and void.
"Sixth-That the plaintiff Chitten
den well knew and intended that III,
influence of General Garfield, as {
member of Congress, was TO be used il
procuring the contract, rather thar
his arguments as counselor at law, il
evident from his letter TO the defend
ants, set out in their special plea, il
which he says: The influence of Gen
eral Garfield has been secured by yes
terday, last night and to.days labors
He carries the purse Of tho United
States-the Chairman of the Commit
tee on Appropriations, and is th,
strongest man in Congress, and with
our friends my demand Is today, mo-
less than one hundred thousand more
two hundred in all. Everything is il
tho haat ahana tho oonpac,;op oo,,