The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1880-07-02

MONhOE, LOUlSlAN.
importance to me, and would be glad
to share it with him. The same day
or day after left for Cleveland, and
when I received my fec The had previ-
ously received $4,000 which he did not
share with Garfield, or even mention
to him1, some considerable time after,
from my clients in Chicago, deposit
ed Gen. Garfield's to his credit in bank,
and SO wrote him.
Now, it is already seen from Chit
tenden's foregoing letters what kind of
a "case' Parsons was representing, and
what sort of sscounsel'' he was. That
shallow device deceived nobody. Par
sons was we'll known lobbyist, and
they hired him solely because he could
manage Garfield, whom Chittenden
described as ssholdiDg the purse strings
of the United States.'' The Ring
wanted money, and he was the man
who handled the appropriations.
Garfield did not appear before the
joint committee of 1874. But when
the subject was revived before the real
estate pool committee, in Feb, 1877,
he came to the front. B. n. Nicker-
son, the owner of patent process
used in the Do Golyer pavement, had
made some damaging revelations, and
Garfield cross-exanined him. They
had some sharp tilts, and finally Gar
field undertook to reveal his own con-
nection with tho De GoIycr job, and
to explain his $1,000 bride, in these
words:
GA day or two before the adjourn
ment of Congress, which adjourned in
the latter part of May, or the first part
of June, 1872 he didn't know which,
with the record to refer to], Richard c.
Parsous, who was practising lawyer
in Cleveland, but was then Marshal of
the Supreme Court and an old acQuain-
tance Of mine, came to my house and
said he was called away summarily by
important business Eafter having just
been brought to Washington by Chit
tenden]; that he was retained in q case
on which he had spent a great deal Of
time, and that there was but one thing
to be done, to make brief
of the relative merits of II large num-
Der of wooden pavements. He said he
should lose his fec unless the brief on
the merits of these pavements was
made, and he asked me to prepare The
brief. He brought me his papers to my
house, and models of tho pavement.
When Congress adjourned sat down
to the case in the most open manner,
as would prepare brief for the Su-
Preme Court, and worked upon this
matter. I went over the whole ground
carefully and thoroughly, and prepared
q brief on the relative claims of these
pavelnents for the consideration OF the
Board. That avas all Gid. ought
to say here that never saw Mr.. Chit
tenden until about the time / made
- ~s<>rT =,
hired Parsons and Parsons had agreed
to ssshare" his fec with Garfield.
When had made tho u,.g,mseM no
brief now] 1 went home to Ohio, and
some time in the month of July,
think, Mr.. Parsons deposited in bank,
to my credit, $5,OOO.''
According to his own story, Garfield
received $4,000 for preparing this little
"brief," and he says, s'That was all
did," 1t now came Nickerson's turn
to cross-question Garfield. Their posi-
tions were exactly reversed, for previ-
ously Nickerson had been subjected to
that ordeal regarding his testimony be-
fore the joint committee in 1874. He
asked him:
sEQ.-Gen. Garfield, did you file with
tho Board of Public Works Of this Dis
trict a drief, or opinion, written, print
ed, or otherwise, upon tho subject OF
the De Golyer patent pavement ?''
Garfield attempted to evadc n direct
answer to this probing question, and
shufiled. But categorical reply was
and then he said:
"A.-I could not say did.
"Q.-Did you at any time appear
before the Board and make any oryu-
,neut whatever?
"A.-Z do not remember Wut did;
but 1 did speak to Gov. Shepherd on
the subject; giving my opinion III its
favor"
1t thus appears that he never filed
the pretended brief nor made the al
legged argument. Boss Shepherd testi-
fed, "Mr. Garfield spoke to me once
about it," and for that, it is claimed,
he was paid $5,000,!
Garfield earned his bribe, in dcvo- !
tion to the interests Of tho Ring. He
was the faithful champion of Shcp-
herd, Cooke, Babcock, and the rest Of
them, in the Committee of Appropria-
tions and on the floor of the House.
He falsified the record, distorted the
facts, and abused his position to carry
through the most scandalous approTr-
ations. He reported and finally car
ried 1892 ,62O.2l "for work done oppo-
Si to and arOnnh (soyernmont reScrva-