The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-09-16
cost of the pavement; the actual work.
inc cost of the pavement in this city.

To procure this contract the sum OF
$4,000 was coruptly expended, part OF
which was traced into the pockets OF
James A. Garfield.
The DeGolyer contract was made in
the spring of 1872, when the Ring first
started out on large scale and laid the
foundation OF the vast robberies, prodi-
gality, and reckless waste which followed
throughout its whole career, until the
late investigation suddenly ended the IL
cense, outrages, and exorbitance which
for three years had defed law and dis
graced the capital.
Shepherd wanted aid from all sources
in carrying out the comprehensive
plan" by which the community and the
public treasury were to be plundered.
1t was especially desirable to enlist the
support of members of Congress who
held leading positions. Hence their
next friends were given large contracts,
or partnership interests to secure this
important influence, In other cases
money was paid directly into the hands
OF members, or through confidential
sources, to cover up the venality.
aARFIELD's ASSOCIATES.
At this time Richard G. Parsons was
Marshal of the Supreme Court at Wash
ington, and had converted that respect
able office into headquarters for the
lobby, where every yenal scheme was
canvassed and concocted,
Henry D. Cooke was then Governor
Of the District, President Of the First
National Bank, a member of the firm OF
Jay Cooke q Co., and by virtue Of his
Office the ostensible chief of the Wash
ington Ring,
Therefore nothing was easier in the
world for Cooke and Shepherd, who
arbitrarily controlled all the contracts,
excluded every form of competition,
and did not even allow bids to be made,
than to admit Parsons and Garfield to an
interest in one of these large jobs.
GARFIEEo's SHARE OF THE BRIBE.
Mr.. Parsons received $15, 900 in money
for aiding to get this contract, of which
sum Mr.. Garfield had $1,000 as his share.
The former went before the committee
and made statement, intended u IL
heve himself from q discreditable part
IN the iobbery. A few extracts from
his written statement and the examina-
ton which followed it, will throw light
upon the subject, which neither Par
sons nor Garfield meant to shed.
In the spring of 1872 Il think in
April, l was retained by Mr. Chitten-
den, as a lawyer, on behalf of the firm
of DeGolyer & Mcclellan, of Chicago,
to argue before the Board of Public
Works at Washington the question of
the superiority Of their patent for cured
wood pavements.
Mr.. Parsons labored hard to produce
the impression that his services were
strictly professional, though hired by
the lobbyist who was seeking a contract
for his influence with Governor Cooke
But few words from Senator Thurman
soon crushed that sham.
Q.-Was your argument on the legal
question? A.-No, sir. There was no
dispute as to the patent, but there was
an important question as to which Of all
the patents presented was the best one.
Consequently the professional pretext |
was a deception. He went to meeting
of the board in the capacity Of lobby |
ist only, and he was accompanied there
on the same errand by the Rev. W. G. |
Brown, who was also paid $4,000 with
out claiming to be Lawyer" though |
retained" by Chittenden just as Par
sons was When interrogated further,
he said.
The Board sat very much as you are
sitting here; there was large number
of spectators, 1t was in May or June,
and very pleasant day. made the !
argument, and ! think I was kept at
least two hours.
EIGHTY-FoUR DOLLARS A MINUTE.
So, for being "kept two hours" Mr.,