American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1880-09-04
Judge Doolittle ON the De Golyer Job.
In his late speech at Indianapolis Ex-
Senator Doolittle thus spoke of the DE
Golyer pavement job, and how Garfield
became connected with it:

became connected with it:
One Chittenden agreed with De Golyer ant
McClelland, contractors of Chicago, to Obtain
lie Works in Eastern cities. He was to get the
Jobs and they were to fulfill them. But he wa.
TO have one-third of all the net profits for the
tai, material and work Chittenden went or
to Washington, where Boss shepard was in tbs
height of his glory. Through the influence OF
Garfield, mainly, Chittenden got a contract,
awarded by Boss Shepard and his colleagues, tC
actual cost Of laying it down was only Sl5O,
leaving, if the contract should be fulfilled, a
Chittenden sued McCIelland and Charles E.
jenkins, who had bought out De Golyer, and
was substituted i'm his place, upon his contract
ing, at least, $lO0,OOO. E. A. Storrs, Esq, a
very ingenious, able and eloquent lawyer, OF
Chicago, the same who defended Babcock In
st. Louis, WAS attorney and counsel for Chit
tenden. Myself and my son, j. X. DOolittle,
Jr, were retained to defend. We pleaded
specially. The substantial defense set up was,
that Chittenden obtained the contract by i'm
proper influences, against public policy, and,
therefore, the contract was void; The pleas
averred also that the plaintiff well knew that
it was void and was obtained by improper in
huences.
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 $1,000
square yards upon it's face, contingent upon
a future appropriation to be made by Con-
gross; that the plaintiff employed james A.
GdrnelQ, tncn DefnX II I0efuUeT Oh COuBTcSS
and Chairman of tue Committee on Appropri-
atoms of the House of Representatives, agree
ing to pay him a contingent fee of 5000
provided he would obtain the said contract II
the Board of Public Works; that by his intlu-
ence and persuasion he did procure the
that afterward bill was reported from the
committee of which he was chairman, and did
pass the House, and passed Congress and be-
came n law, appropriating the sum of 81 AL
60, out of which the pavement under said con-
tract could be paid for 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
at the time of his said employment, and at the
that the said Garfield from his official position
did and would have a potent influence in pro-
ane or into efect by said Board
of Public Works; and that by means of the
premises the said contract was, in fact, OBJ
tanned by improper influences, against public
policy, and is void.
In order to show that the contract awarded
was dependent upon the future APPROXIMATION T,
words of the contract as follows, viz:
IAN additional amount of fifty thousand
square yards will he awarded you so soon as
the Board arc reimbursed by the General Gov
on account of expenditures around
tho public buildings and grounds, or you will
bc allowed to lay it this season ii you can wait
until an appropriation is made for the purpose
ut $3.50 per SQUARE yard
In order to show tnat the plaintiff knew that
it was the influence of General Garfield rs a
of Congress, and not the arguments
Of General Garfield as lawyer, that was sought
and paid for, the pleas further set out letter
from Chttenden TO De Golyer and Mcclellan,
dated ut the Arlington House, at Washington,
in which he said:
1.-The influence of General Garfield has been
by yesterday, last night and to-day's
abors; he carries the purse OF the United
Appropriations and is the strongest man in
Congress and with our friends. My demand
IS to-day not less than one hundred thousand
more-two hundred thousand in all. Every
hing is in the best of shape-the connections
complete, and have reason to believe salts
nave General Garfield with us. 1t Is rare-and
very gratifying Appropriations OF the dis
The, pleas also alleged that Garfield's cQui-
was to be 1900 if he succeeded In
setting the contract, and was to be nothing if
lie did not succeed. Ii alleges that ne did sue
iced and was paid that sum:
To these pleas the plaintiff demurred, and
me case was a1Erner any ny stninn "r MEAS
hus holding upon the facts stated that the
contract was void as against public policy.
There was no appeal. The case ended there
Upon the argument of the demurrer we sub
nitted a written brief. In that had occasion
o cite a case decided in the Supreme Court of
he United States by Justice Swayne, not
hen reported in the books, but now reported
n the 2lst of Wallace. AL, the case Of Burke,
OF First vs.. Child, with which
he profession are familiar.
by the mistake of reporter to the New
FORK World the Language OF portion OF our
,rief was attributed to Judge Swayne. The
mistake natural and easy, because it fol-
owed the case cited. decided by Judge
he mistake was entirely unintentional, and
vas due to a confusion in quotation marks.
Tor u few days it went the ronuds of the press
s the language of Justice Swayne until, in
Justice to him, to Mr.. Carl cid and to myself, |
corrected the mistake i'll II note to the Chi |
oiiows: ''''' A''' " " Jul
"The agreement with General Garfield, a
iember Of Congress, to pay him $o,0U as |
ontingent fee for procuring a contract which |
,as itself made to depend upon II future APP |
by Congress, which appropriation
ould only come from committee OF Wnlcn
o was chairman, was sale OF ofhc1al lnflu- |
nee which no veil can cover; against the |
lainest principles of public policy. No coun-
light to put himself in position of temptation,
nd. under pretense OF making a legal argu-
rent, exert his official influence Ss upon public
ertainy the courts Of Justice will never lend
lemselves to enforce contracts obtained by
UGH influence"
FcllOw-citizens the question is not who said
ais, not whether it was said by a Judge of
ne supreme Court, or ~ lawyer OF LOFTY
1is: Are the statements truel and Is the
Dnclusion from them just?
coplc desire, and will have, an answer.
hat arc the statements? First, that Gar
eds compensation was to be wholly con
oiyer contract, He was to have five thou
md dollars if he succeeded in getting the
v as that statement true? Lay aside from
our mind ali that Chittenden said. Let me
sad you what Garfield himself SAYS about
Understand Mr.. Parsons was retained by these
nrties in Chicago, and they paid him a re-
lining Zee OF nvs tnousan GJ doilars ior I nS
10y were to pay him ten thousand dollars as
contingent fee, if he succeeded. Mr.. Par
.mc to me saying there were ten Thousand
ollars depending upon his success of which
9 would pay me half in case made the ar
M and successful, L SuDDOS0 that
Il fair OK PLANTATION" This is Mr.. Garfeld's
atement; and that is conclusive to show
lcccss. Success! aye, success in what?
here is and there can be, but one answer
,cd He got the contract awarded, and, for
at, he did get his five thousand dollars. The
,xt statement is that the contract obtained
Id for obtaining which he got the five thou
nd dollars, was upon its face contingent
BON future appropriation by Congress. The
IS saws IN IS NPether can
irficld argue words into tho contract nor
It of it. He can no more argue the words or
C seal Off from a bond. Its words are al
ady stated in the plea. But it is so very inn
will again read the condition on the face of
G contract. | would emphasize and itali-
SC these words After the contract awards
e hundred and fifty thousand yards, abso- A.;
tely, then follow these words, viz: I
u An additional amount of fifty thousand
uare yards will be awarded you SO soon as 5
C Board are reimbursed by the General Gov d,
nment on account of expenditures around .
e public buildings and grounds; or you will .
allowed to lay it this season if you can wait I
It'll an appropriation is made for the pur-
sc, at $50 per square yard. 4
That this fifty thousand yards IA part of that !
c hundred thousand more which Chittenden
mandcd after Garfield's influence was Sc ,
rod was made contingent upon the future
by Congress, is declared upon 4
face in express words. 1t is Il plain and
d palpabc fact. The other essential fact
eyed is that Mr.. Garfield was then II MEM
r of Congress and Chairman of the Commit {
/, from which all appropriations came That !
ct is admitted and well known to all the
rid All the essential points stated in the c
ef are true. The next question is, is the
Inclusion just? Beyond any other member