Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1880-08-04
THE DECISION IN THE CASE AT.
FEsTrNG GARFIELD.

GAhflELD.
The SExfrsEL was in error in stating
that the Supreme Court of the United
States had rendered a decision affirming
Garfeld's guilt in the DeGolyer bust
ness. II was the Circuit Court of Cook
county, Illinois, Judge Farwell presiding,
that adjudged him guilty. The decision
was based on a similar opinion Of Justice
Swayne, Of the Supreme Court, and
hence the error Of attributing to the lat
ter the decision involving General Gar
field. That Garfield has been judicially
adjudged guilty of accepting a bride by
a respectable court in a loyal State does
not admit of doubt. The only mistake
the SENTINEL made was in asserting that
the decision was made by the Supreme
Court instead Of a lower tribunal. The
case tried in the Illinois court involved a
sum equal to 500, 600. The defense
plead that the bribery Of Garfield by
plaintiff was contrary to public policy
and morals, and that the courts could not
be used to enforce claims thus contracted.
Judge Farwell held that the defendants
were right and dismissed the case, the
naked effect Of the decision being that
Garfield had accepted a bride for his Of
fetal vote and influence as a member of
Congress and Chairman Of the Committee
on Appropriations. The Albany Argus,
one of the Oldest and most respectable
journals in America. has the following
particulars Of the Illinois case. 1t will
be found interesting, and We commend
the facts to fair-minded Republicans in
Nevada
"No. IL ISL " is a law case. The tri-
bunal in which this case is Of record is the
Circuit Court of Cook county, in the State
of Illinois. As is well known, Cook county
includes Chicago. The name of the plant
if in the case was C~hittenden. The names
of the defendants were DeGolyer d Nc
Clellan. They were a firm, and Chitten-
den had been their agent. The suit he
brought against them was one to recover a
share in the profits of an appropriation he
got for the firm. The appropriation was
to pay for a contract the firm had pre-
vionsly executed.
Filled out. these general statements have
this history: DeGolyer & Mcclellan, a
Chicago firm Of contractors, employed
Chittenden to get them a contract for
wooden pavement in Washington City from
the Board of Public Works, appointed and
controlled by Alex. Shepherd, then Gov
ernor OF Columbia. and commonly known
as Boss" Shepherd. The contract was
for 200 900 additional square yards of pave
ment at So. so q square yard. There was a
stipulation in the contract that so, 900 ad-
ditional square yards were to be laid down.
provided the necessary appropriation for
it could be put through Congress. The
appropriation for the whole number OF
yards, $50, 900 in all. was secured, and
other expenses were included in it. The
amount Of the appropriation was sl,24l,-
600. The mount the pavement company
got out Of it was 500, 900. A ratable per
cent. of the profits Of this was what the
agent sued for. The attorney for the
plaintiff. C~hittenden. vas Mr.. Emory A.
Storrs, q well known Republican orator.
The attorney for the defendants, DeGolyer
4 Mcclellan. was Mr.. James R. Doolittle.
ex-Unised States Senator Of Wisconsin.
The court before which the trial occurred
was presided over by Judge Farweil. The
action was brought IN a claim of q con-
tract alleged to have been made by the de-
PENDANTS with the plaintiff, to pay him
ratably Of the profit Of the contract.
There was no dispute about the facts.
They were these: That the contract was
made; that Of the S700. 600 received by
the company, $500, 900 were profits; that
Mr.. Chittenden was instrumental in get
ting the contract and the appropriation.
None Of these facts were denied; on the
contrary they we're all admitted.
But the defense was this: that the con-
tract with Chittenden was executed by him
in q way contrary to the public policy, and
that the dishonest measures he tool for
feited his claim to legal and equitable con-
sideration. The familiar ground was taken
that to give Judgment for him would be
against public morals. This position was
thus put in the fourth. fifth and sixth
points Of the printed brief of Mr.. Doolit-
tie for the defendants as follows:
Fourth-The pleas are good. They set
out in substance that the contract was OBJ
tanned by the plaintiff Of the Board Of
Public Works Of the District of Columbia
" ALARA0R<4 AhAaIh1Cos 414t tuC COA-
tract was in part-to the amount Of so, 900
square yards-upon its face, contingent
upon q future appropriation to be made by
Congress; that the plaintiff employed
James A. Garfield, then being q member Of
Congress and Chairman on Appropriations
OF the House OF Representatives, agreeing
to pay him q contingent fee Of SIS, 900. pro-
vided be would obtain the said contract OF
the Board of Public Works; that by his
influence and persuasion he did procure
the same. for which he received the sum of
S., 900; that after q bill was reported from
the committee OF which he was Chairman,
and because a law appropriating the sum
of 81, PAL 900, out OF which the payment
under said contract could be paid for BY
said Board of Public Works; that the
plaintiff and the defendant and the said
Garfield, and the members of the said
Board OF Public Works well knew at the
time Of his service in procuring said con-
tract, that said Garfield. from his official
position, did, and would nave q potent in
fuence in procuring the passage Of such
into effect by said Board of Pub
lilo Works. and that by means Of the prem
ises the said contract was, in fact, obtained
by improper influences, against public pol
Icy, and Il void.
Fifth-It is no sufficient answer to say
thet Garfield was at the same time a mem
Der of the legal profession. His being q
member Of Congress at the same time. any
employment as counsel upon q contingent
ZEE or otherwise. to obtain a contract from
board OF public officers. dependent npon
he future action Of Congress to fulfill, is
gainst public policy and void.
Sixth--That the plaintiff C~rittenden well
new and intended that Gen. Garfield, g