The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-09-01
THE DE GOLYER PAVEMENT.
The Entire Matter Thoroughly and Dis
passionately Reviewed.
He Received $4,000 for Securing From
ssBoss shepherd" the Contract
for the job.
IChicago Times.l

Garfield had anything TO do with the De Goiyer
pavement the Board OF Public Works of Washing
ton, ID. C., together with the Engineers who acted
with them had decided on the price 10 be paid for
wood pavement and had decided to use some
wood pavement?
was at that time considered as good, IL not the
best, wood pavement in use? Was not the price
which the Board had decided to pay $50 per
New York, Brooklyn and Chicago?
3. Does the evidence show that General Gar
field had anything to do with the form of con-
tract which was entered into by the Board with
De Golyer and McClelIand?
4. Does not the evidence show that all General
Garfield had to do was with reference to the kind
of wood pavement to be adopted?
>. Is IL not true that at the time General Gar
field was employed by Parsons provision had
been made for the property 10 pay for the
pavement by special assessment and general taxa
ton?
6. At that time could anyone foresee that Con-
gress would be called ON for an appropriation to
pay for the pavement?
Chicago, August is, 1880.
These inquiries come from a responsible
source. and having been made in good faith
deserve the fullest and fairest answer the
Times can make.
l. The price was substantially fixed for
wooden pavement, and it was the design of
the District Government to use pavement of
this kind.
2. The De Golyer & McClelland wood
pavement simple was as good as the best.
Much of it had been laid in Chicago. But
the contract made was for the De Golyer No.
=. that is, the wood pavement treated by
what was called an '.ironizing'' process, of
which one Dickerson was the patentee.
What this process cost in other cities than
Washington the.Times does not know The
price paid there admitted of large margin
of profit, which sufficiently accounts for the
eagerness of De Golyer 4 McClelland to Sc
cure contracts. The ''ironized' process of
treating wooden blocks for pavement was a
complete failure. This was demonstrated
on Lake street in Chicago.
g. No.
f. The evidence upon all sides shows that
General Garfield, having been retained to
aid in securing contracts for De Golyer x
McClelland, secured them. His clients in
terests became his He was in favor of
using their kind of pavement.
s. This is true only in part. Property
holders maintained that the assessment
upon themselves, first on the theory that the
United States should aid in identifying its
own capital; next, that it was largely an
owner of the property supposed to be i'm
mediately benefited. The assessment on
private property was only for one-third the
cost of the improvements Part of the De
GOlyer contracts were to be paid in cash.
1aIl also were 10 DC Ill anu
1T was understood unotfcially that the
United States would eventually make these
these certificates good.
6. Everybody connected actively with the
affairs of the District foresaw clear
" that Congress would be called on for
an appropriation to pay in part for the
pavement and, as matter of fact such claim
was made at the very time those contracts
were being let Before General Garfield had
hoe RI, Cd fx-D 10 FOR Ta Al
yer IL McClelland, the claim had been
made for an appropriation by Congress of
$192, 602 to pay for Improvements made in
front of Government property and of the
little parks made by intersections of streets.
General Garfield advocated such apprOpria-
ton, claiming that its payment would be
equitable. The House refused the amount,
the Senate reduced it, but upon
conference it was voted. This wasin 1872
just before the adjournment of Congress, and
before Garheld's retention by Parsons. 1t
was known that Congress would be called
upon for appropriations in this pavement
matter because Committee on the Affairs
of the District which had been examining
charges against the Board of Public Works,
had reported to the House, recommending
fair and generous appropriations from Con-
gress for the Board of the District. 1t was
after the adjournment of this Congress that
Garfield acted for De Golyer December 16
following Garfield rose in his seat and asked
an appropriation of 81, 241 $40 for works con-
traeted in the District of Columbia by the
Board of Works. He urged the instant
passage of the bill, which was regu-
larly reported from the Committee on
Appropriations, of which he was Chair
man, but it was opposed and did not become
a law until a month later The bill was for
a gross sum. The Board, in its yearly report,
showed that of this gross sum S132, 461 was
for laying wood pavement on Pennsylvania
avenue That report also showed that De
Golyer and McClelland had received a con-
tract to lay their patent pavement on that
street. In the March following Garfield's
Committee again asked and again received
an appropriation for the District, this time
for -, 307, 012. These large appropriations,
together with the known dishonesty of the
District ring, led to Congressional inyestiga-
ton, and the report was made that these two
appropriations "were founded on accounts
presented by the Observation-Disclosures for work
said to have been done, and for which ii was
alleged the Government of the United States
was equitably liable" The Committee re-
ported that ''those accounts were unreliable
and inaccurate, and that the provisions of
law requiring their verificatiOn were not
complied with according to their letter and
spirit" Among these accounts upon which
appropriations were based was the item OF
1882 461 for the pavement of Pennsylvania
avenue, for which, whether in whole or in
part does not appear, contract had been
made with De Golyer & McClelland, who
secured their favorable hearing by Boss Shop
herd through Mr.. Garfield. Before its abolish
ment as an organized peculation, the Board
of Public Works, of which Shepherd was
the brains. obtained from Congress, during
Mr.. Garfields Craftsmanship of the House
Committee of Appropriations, the gross sum
of "a, so, $40, The Times will add, though
inquiry is not made upon that point, that Mr..
Garfield's claim that he had prepared brief
on the pavement question is not substan-
tiated. Such brief was never filed with
the Board, and has never been published.
The General admits that he never made any
use of it, and that he never made any argu-
ment before the Board He asked Shepherd
to give a contract to De Golyer K McClelland
He gave it. For that service he received
$1,000. What return could he make Shep-
hard for tho favOr9