Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1880-09-09
Judge Doolittle on the DE GoIyer Job.

Senator DoOlittle thus spoke of the DE
Gclyer pavement job, and how Garfield
became connected with it:
One Chittenden agreed with De Golyer and
McCleand, contractors of Chicago, to obtain
paving jobs for them from the Boards of Pub
lie Works in Eastern cities. He was to get the
jobs and they were 10 fulfill them. But he was
to have one-third of all the profits for the
getting of them, they furnishing all the cap-
tai, material and work. Chittenden went on
to Washington where Boss Shepard was in the
height OF his glory. Through the influence of
Garfield, mainly, Chittenden got II contract,
awarded by Boss Shepard and his colleagues, to
pave 2Oo,0OO yards at $3.50 per yard, when the
actual cost of laying it down was only Sl.50,
leaving, If the contract should be fulfilled u
net profit of 100000.
Chittenden sued McClelland and Charles E.
Jenkins, who had bought out De Golyer, and
was substituted in his place, upon his contract
to receive his One-third of the profits, claim
ing, at least. 100000. T.. A. Storrs ESQ.,, a
very ingenious, able and eloquent lawyer, of
Chicago, the same who defended Babcock in
st. Louis, was attorney and counse! for Chit
tenden. Myself and my son, j. X. DOolttle,
Jr., were retained to defend. We pleaded
specially. The substantial defense set up was,
that Chittenden obtained the contract by inn
proper influences, against public policy, and,
therefore, the contract was void. The pleas
averred also that the plaintiff well knew that
ii was void and was obtained by improper in
fuenceS.
The facts set out in the pleas are too
yOluminOuS for me to read them, as could if
had time. But they set out in substances:
That the contract was to the amount of $4,000
future appropriation To be made by Con-
gress; that the plaintiff employed James A.
Garfieid; then De DC t q mem4er Oh S0ngress
ations of the House of Representatives, agrec-
ing to pay him a contingent fec of 5000
provided he would obtain the said contract OF
the Board of Public Works; that by his intlu-
ence and persuasion he did procure the
same, for which he received the sum of 5000;
that lfterward bill was reported from the
committee of which he was chairman, and did
pass the House. and passed Congress and be
l.lNrr rf.lf
go. out of which the pavement unde said con-
tract could be paid tor by said BOARD of Pub
lie Works, that the plaintiff, and the defend
ants and the said Garfield, and the members
of the said Board of Public Works well knew
time of his service i'll procuring said contract,
that the said Garfield from his official position
did and would have Il potent influence in pro-
curing the passage of such appropriation TO
carry such contract into effect by said Board
of Public Works; and that by means OF the
premises the said contract was, in fact, OBJ
tained by improper influences, against public
policy, and is void.
In order to show that the contract awarded
was dependent upon the future appropriation
of Congress, the plea further sets out the
words of the contract as follows VIZ:
An additional amount OF NIFTY Thousand
square yards will be awarded yOu so soon as
the Board are reimbursed by the General Gov
eminent on account OF expenditures arounu
the public buildings and grounds, or you VIII
be allowed to lay il this season II you can wait
until an appropriation is made for the purpose
at $3.50 per square yard
In order to SHOW tnat the plaintiff knew that
il was the influence of General Garfield as a
member of Congress, and not the arguments
of General Garfield as lawyer, that was sought
and paid for, the pleas further set out letter
from Chittenden to De Golyer and Mcclellan,
dated mt the Arlington House, at washington,
i'll which he said:
The influence of General Garfield has been
secured by yesterday, last nlght ana t9-uay
Statcs-the Chairman of the committee on
Appropriations, ana is the strongest man IN
is to-day not less than one hundred thousand
mOre-two hundred thousand in all. Every
thing is in the best of shape-the connections
complete and have reason to believe salts
factory. - can hardly realize that we
have General Garfield with US. 1t is rare-and
very gratifying. Appropriations of the dis
trict come from him"
The pleas also alleged that Garfeds COM
pensation was to be 50 O0) if he succeeded in
getting the contract, and was to be nothing if
he did not succeed. 1t alleges that he did sue
coed and was paid that sum.
To these pleas the plaintiff demurred, and
the case was decided by Judge Farwel, over
ruling the demurrer and sustaining our pleas,
thus holding upon the facts stated that the
contract was void as against public policy.
There appeal. The case ended there.
Upon the argument of the demurrer we sub
mitted a written brief. In that had occasion
to cite a case decided in the supreme Court OF
then reported in the books but now reported
in the 2lst of Wallace, AL the ease OF Burke,
administrator OF First VS.. Child, with which
the profession are familiar.
BY the mistake of IL reporter to the New
York World, the language of portion OF our
mistake was natural and easy, because it fol-
lowed the case cited, decided by Judge
Swayne, from which quotation was VAST, made ,;
due to a confusion IN guotatlOn MARKS
For q few days it went the ronuds of the press
as the language of Justice Swayne until, IN
Justice to him, to Mr.. Garfield and to- myself,
corrected the mistake in a note to the Chi
cago Times. Those words OF our brief are rs
follows:
1.-The agreement with General Garfield, a
Member of Congress, to pay him 5000 as a
contingent fee for procuring IL contract which
was itself made to depend upon future APP
preparation 10y Congress, which appropriation
could only come from committee OF which
he was chairman, was IL sale OF official ln1u-
ence which veil can cover; against the !
plainest principles of public policy. No coun-
seIor mt law. while holding high office, has IL
right to put himself in position of temptation |
and, under pretcnso OF making legal argl- |
ment, exert his official influence upon public |
officers dependent upon his future action. |
Certainly the courts of Justice will never lend !
themselves to enforce contracts obtained by
such influence"
Fcllow-citiZens, the question is not who said |
this, not whether it was said by Judge of
the Supreme Court, or by Il lawyer of forty |
years practice: but the important question is |
this: Are the statements true? and is the |
conclusion from them just?
That's the question to which the American |
people desire, and will have, an answer. |
What are the statements? First. that Gar |
fields compensation was to be wholly con- |
tingent upon his success in getting the De !
Golycr contract. He was to have i've thou I
sand dollars if he succeeded in getting the |
contract and nothing if he did not get it.
Was that statement true? Lay aside from |
your mind all that Chittenden said Let me |
read you what Garfield himself saws about |
that, in his own words of explanations: 81
understand Mr.. Parsons was retained by these |
parties in Chicago, and they paid him re-
tanning fee of five thousand dollars for his |
services, whether he succeeded or not. And |
they were to pay him ten thousand dollars as
d contingent fee, if he succeeded. Mr.. Par
sons had done the bulk of the work. He |
came to me saying there were ten thousand
dollars depending upon his success, of which |
he would pay me half in case l made the ar
gument and was successful. / suppose that |
Is a fair explanation This is Mr.. Garfields
statement; and that is conclusive to show |
that his fee was wholly contingent upon his
success. Success! aye, success in whatI |
There is, and there can be, but one answer
success in getting the contract. He did sue
coed. He got the contract awarded. and, for |
that, he did get his five thousand dollars. The |
next statement is that the contract obtained |
and for obtaining which he got the five thou
sand dollars, upon its face contingent /
upon future appropriation by Congress. The
award is in writing. Let it speak for itself. |
What it says is conclusive. Neither can Mr.. |
Garfield argue words into the contract nor |
out of it. He can no more argue the words of
the condition out of it than he could argue
the seal Off from bond. Its words are al
ready stated in the plea. But it is so very inn
portant in judging rightly of the matter that
/ will again read the condition on the face of
the contract. | would emphasize and itali-