The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-09-16
y further Indebtedness against the Dis.

GeneEhl GOV6rnuenl'
Again
The Congressional Committee say in
their report "Your Committee are una
BILE to see but one way in which the Board
could have expected TO pay this large
debt; that is, by receiving aid from Con-
gress."
Mr.. Garfield could not have uttered
more naked falsehood than he did at War
rem, when he claimed that Congress had
nothing to do with the improvements made
in the city of Washington.
Mr.. Garfield claims that his services in
the pavement job" we're legitimate legal
practice that the Committee did not re-
gard his connection with the business as
improper, and that he Is incapable of
understanding the track of mans mind
who sees any thing to criticise in his con-
duct in this matter.
He reads the letter of Judge Wilson,
who was a member of the committee, to
sustain the propriety Of his fee and SER
vices,
Now let us see what the testimony dis
closes.
1t is shown that Chittenden, the agent
Of DeGolyer " Co., paid and promised
$97 900 for influence in getting his con-
tracts The Investigating Committee spent
several days in endeavoring to ascertain
into whose pocket this influence money
had gone Was 1.-THE track of the Com
mttee's mind" so shallow that they should
thus occupy their time and send to dis
tant States for witnesses to hunt up q
matter that did not concern Congress2
At page 8 OF me Committees report they
say "Any system rhich would enable an
adventure to come from a distant city
and in lie name Of a contracting firm
make ; 1ffers of so cents per yard to any
person having or supposed to have, infu.
ence with the Board whereby paving con-
tract could be secured, and after persistent
efforts succeed in securing contract
and actually binding his principals, the
contractors, to pay $4,000 for contract
of 100000 yards of pavement after an effort
of five months to secure it, the gross
amount to be received being only about
100000, in its nature must be vicious and
ought to be condemned"
George X. Chittenden expended $97 900
in obtaining his 100000 contract. He
gave $4,000 to one Col. Kirkland. He had
contract with Brown, Rice, Paige, and
Parsons, but gave the lions share to Col.
Kirkland.
Before the Committee Mr. Chittenden
testified as follows page 1246.)
Q.-I understand you had so cents a
square yard to give away to some one to
get this thing done2
A.--Yes, sir.
Q.-Did you not have someHcuriosity to
know what the gentleman (Col Kirtland)
was to do for all That money! (S72,OOO)
Alt was contingent fee entirely. If
the award was made l was to pay the
money, that was all,
Q.-Yes, but it was contingent with Col,
Parsons?
Apart of it,
Q.-Ten thousand dollars of his fee was
contingent?
A.-Yes, sir; and with Mr. VIM. Colvin
Brown in the same way
Q.-And your labors here were contin-
gent; you were not going to get anything
until you succeeded?
A.-Of course not.
O. Were you not doing more work than
Col Kirtland2
Al do not know whether l was doing
more or less.
Q.-What did you hear of his doing?
A.-Well, he claimed to have influence.
There was great competition
here in Washington, and all | Mad to do
was to get all the force and all the intiu-
ence to get public influence in favor of it,
Q.-Did Kirkland know you had the SER
vices of Mr., Parsons2 Page 1851
Ale knew that.
Q,-Because he was a public employee
as an Attorney?
A.-Yes, sir. My idea, if l may be al
lowed to state here, was TO have all the
influence from different quarters concen-
trated to get this contract
Here was corruption fund of $4,000
expended for public influence. A renegade
by the name of VIM. Colvin Brown, who
claimed to have influence gets $4,000,
Col. Kirkland gets $4,000 for his influence
in getting through this contract and Par
sons and Garfield get $4,000 for their in
fuence.
Again. This Board drew their salary
from the United States Treasury, and were
by act of Congress compelled to report all
their transactions to Congress on or before
the first Monday of November in each
year.
This report was required by Congress
as basis for its legislation and the ex.
istence Of the Board was dependent upon
Congress; and three days after the Invest
eating Committee made their report Con
gress abolished the Board of Public Works
before which, as lawyer, Carried prac-
ticed la,o by inducing the Board to give a
contract to DeGolyer & Co.
That the Board of Public Works and
other officers of the Government of the
District of Columbia were only the agents
of Congress in the management Of the af-
fairs of the District is abundantly proven
by the above citations. And Gen. Gar
field, as member of Congress was Charg-
ed, upon his official oath, with the duty Of
upon honest and faithful con-
duct upon the part of these agents Of Con-
gress, When he learned that his friend,
Col. Parsons, an eminent lobbyist, but an
and briehess lawyer, had
been offered $4,000 for pleading" with
this Board for paving contract, Garfield
knew there was "job" in it. Instead of
looking after the doings Of this Board,
with whom Parsons legal knowledge was
in such high demand, he takes hand with
Col. Parsons and helps him argue the
Board into giving their clients contract.
This great forensic effort of Gen. Garfield
created no sensation in the legal profes-