The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1880-07-09

George R Chittenden was the agent or
lobbyist who procured for De Golyer q
Mcclellan, of Chicago, their contract to
lay wooden pavements in the streets of
Washington. The pavement was rotten,
but the profits were enormous. OF these
profits Chittenden claimed twenty-five
per cent, or about 500, 700, for his share
in the job. But De Golyer d Mcclellan,
who had cheerfully paid Garfield his
fee of %, 900, refused to pay the larger
sum demanded by the agent, and Chitten-
den brought suit against them in the Cook
County courts.
The contractors did not dispute Chit
tenden's services. Through their coun-
sci, ex-senator Doolittle, they set up
peculiar defence-that Chittenden's claim
was void and against public policy, be-
cause he had obtained the contract by i'm
proper influences, having bribed Garfield,
the Chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priations. The payment of 5000 to Gar
field, it was held, was not for "the dTg,s-
,Ue,ats Of said Garfield as a LasCyer, 6,tt for
his influence as a member Of Congress
having po,oer over the appropriations to
be made"
The plaintiff, Chittenden, through his
counsel, Emory A. Storrs, demurred to
these pleas. The defendants Joined in the
demurrer, and on May IA, 1875, ex-Sena-
tor Doolittle submitted the following
points to Judge Farwell of the Cook
County Circuit Court:
The pleas are coed They set out in substance
that the contract was obtained by the plaintiff of
the Board of Public Works of the District of Co.
lumbia by improper influences; that the contract
was in part-to the amount Of $4,000 square
yards-upon its face contingent upon q future
approPriation~t TO be made by Congress; that the
plaintiff employed James A. Garfield, then being
a member of Congress and Chairman of the Com
mittee on Appropriations Of the House of Repre-
sentatives, agreeing to pay him q contingent fee
of 81, 900, provided he would obtain the said con.
tract of the Board of Public Works; that by his
influence and persuasion he did procure the same,
for which he received the sum OF 5000 that
afterward bill was reported from the committee
of which he was chairman, and did pass the
House, and pass Congress, and become law,
appropratng the sum of 81 ,241 900, out of which
the payment under said contract could be paid for
by said Board of Public Works; that the plain.
tiff and the defendant and the said Garfield and
the members of the said Board Of Public Works
well knew at the time of his said employment
and at the time of his service in procuring said
contract that said Garfield from his official posi-
ton, did and would have potent influence in
procuring the passage of such appropriation to
carry such contract into effect, by said Board of
Public Works, and by means of the premises the
said contract was in fact, obtained by improper
influences, against public policy, and IS void.
II is no sufficient answer to say that Garfield
was at the same time member Of the legal pro-
fession. His being member of Congress at the
same time, any employment as counsel upon
contingent fee or Otherwise, to obtain a contract
from board of public officers, dependent upon
the future action of Congress to fulfill, Ii against
public policy and void.
That the plaintiff, Chittenden, well knew and
intended that the influence of General Garfield,
as member Of Congress, was to be used in
procuring the contract rather than his arguments
as counsellor at law, is evident from his letter
to the defendants set ont in their special plea in
which he says: The influence ofGeneral Gar
field has been secured by yesterday, last night
and to days labOrs. He carries the purse of the
United States-the Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations Is the strongest man
in Congress, and with our friends my demand is
to-day, not less than one hundred thousand more
two hundred in all. Everything is in the best
shape, the connections complete, and. l have rea-
son to believe, satisfactory. l
can hardly realize that we have General Garfield
with us. II is rare and very gratifying. All the
appropriations of the District come from him."
Judge Farwell overruled the demurrer,
sustained the pleas and held that the
contract was against public policy and
void, because it had been corruptly OBJ
tanned.