The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1880-08-26
THE HILLsBORO GAZETTE
AND THE DEGOLYER BRIBERY
CHARGE AGAINST GEN,
GARFIELD. OBJ. -.a--

The Hillsboro Gazette of the 18th
undertook to answer an article in
the News of the 5tb, in which Hon.
10. A. White was taken to task for
charging General Garfield with
bribery in the DeGolyeF pavement
business. The Gazette asserts that
Mr. Whites charge is true, and then
attempts to prove it by quoting
some resolutions passed by few Of
Gen. Garfeld's Republican constitu-
ents, in September, 1876. One Of
these resolutions makes the same
charge of bribery that was made by
Mr.. White, and the Gazette says,
"Here it is proven by the best Re
publican evidence, that Mr.. Garfield
sold his official influence to DeGol-
yer, & Co"
We beg leave to'deny the Gazette's
conclusion. 1t does not follow, by
any means, that because Garfield was
charged by a few dissatisfied Re
publicans or any body else,with bribe-
ry, that he was guilty. Against their
charge, and that of Mr.. White, we
present
First, Gen. Garfeld's own dis
tinct and emphatic denial Of its
truth, as follows:
81 want to say this, further, that
if my fee in connection with this
pavement, even by suggestion or
implication, had any relation what
ever to any appropriation by Con
gress for anything connected with
this District, or with anything else,
it is due to me, it is due to this com
mittee, it is due to Congress, that
this person be summoned. II there
be a man on this earth who makes
such a charge, that man is the most
infamous perjuror that lives, and I
shall be glad to confront him any
where in this world"
Second, The statement of Hon.
J. M. Wilson, chairman of the
House Committee of Investigation
into the DeGolyer contract. Here
it is:
"CoNNERsvu.LE, Ind, Aug. I, IA
"Hon. Geo. W. Steel; rr
"DEAR Sm-To the request for in
formation as to whether or not the
action of General Garfield, in con
nection with the affairs of the Dis
trict of Columbia, was the subject of
condemnation by the committee that
recently had those affairs under con-
sideration, I ANSWER THAT IT
WAS NOT; NOR WAS THERE,
IN MY OPINION, ANY EVI-
DENCE THAT WOULD HAVE
WARRANTED ANY UNFAYOR-
ABLE CRITICISM UPON HIS
CONDUCT.
"The facts disclosed by the evi-
dence, so far as he is concerned, are
briefly these:
"The Board of Public Works was
considering the question as to the
kind of pa7ements that should be
laid. There was a contest IS to the
respective merits of various wooden
pavements. Mr.. Parsons represent
ed the DeGolyer & McClelland pat
ent, and being called away from
Washington about the time the hear
ing was to be had before the Board
of Public Works on the subject,
procured General Garfield to ap-
pear before the board in his stead
and argue the merits of this patent.
THIS HE DID, AND THIS WAS
THE WHOLE OF HIS CONNEC-
TION WITH THE MATTER. 1t
is not a question as to the kind Of
contract that should be made, but as
to whether this particular kind of
pavement should be laid. The crit
cism of the committee was not upon
the pGUen1eat in favor Uf which Gen.
Garfield argued, but it was upon the
contract made with reference to it !;
AND THERE WASNOEVIDENCE
THAT WOULD WARRANT THE
CONCLUSION THAT HE HAD
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
LATTER.
Very respectfully, &c,
81. M. Wilson"