The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1880-10-20
CHIrTENDEN'S SUIT.
How General Gnrfield Appears fm
Court.

George II. Chittenden was the agent
or lobbyist who procured for De(iOlyer
Il Mcclellan, of Chicago, their contract
to lay wooden pavements i'm the streets
of Washington. The pavement was
rotten, but the profits were enormous.
of these profits Chittenden claimed %
per cent, or about Sl00,OOO, for his
share In the job. But DeCiOlyer Il Nc
Clellan, who had cheerfully paid James
A. Garfield his "fee" of 5000, refused
to pay the larger sum demanded by the
agent, and Chittenden brought suit
against them i'm the Cook county courts.
The contractors did not dispute Chit
tenden's services. Through their coun-
sci, ex-senator DOOlittle, they set up u
peculiar defense Chittenden's
claim was void and against public pol
icy, because he had obtained the con-
tract by improper influences, having
bribed Garfield, the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations. The
payment of 5000 to Garfield, ii was
held, was not for "the arguments of said
! Garfield rs u lawyer, but for his in-
fluence rs member of Congress hav-
ing power over the appropriations tn be-
made"
The plaintiff, Chittenden, through his
counsel, Emery A. Storrs, demurred to
these pleas. The defendants joined i'm
the demurrer, and on May IA, 1875, ex-
Senator DoOlittle submitted the follow
ing points to Judge Farwell, of the
Cook county circuit court:
The pleas are good. They set out in
substance that the contract was obtain
ed by the plaintiff of the Board of Pub
lie Works of the District of Columbia
by improper influences; that the con-
tract WAS in part-tO the amount of So
900 square yards-upon its face, cOntin-
gent upon future appropriation To be
made by Congress-; that the plaintiff
employed James A. Garfield, then be-
ing member Of Congress and chair
man of the Committee OH Appropria-
tions of the House of Representatives,
agreeing to pay him contingent fee OF
$1,000, provided he would obtain the
said contract of the Board of Public
Works; that by his influence and. per-
stlasiOn he did procure the same, for
which he received the sum of 5000;
that atterward bill was reported from
the committee of which he was chair
man, and did pass the House, and pass
Congress-, and become law, appro-
priating the sum Of Sl,24l 900, out OF
which the payment under said contract
could be paid for by said Board of Pub
lie Works; that the plaintiff and the
defendant and the said Garfield and the
members of s lid Board of Public Works
well knew at the time of his said en-
ployment, and ut the time of his SER
vice in procuring said contract, that
said Garfield, from his official position,
did and would have potent influence
in procuring the passage of such apprO-
priatiOn to carry said contract into effect
by said Board of Public Works, and
that by means Of the premises the said
contract was, in fact, obtained by I'M
proper influence against public policy,
and is void.
1t is no sufficient answer TO say that
Garfield was at the same time a men,
Der of the legal profession. His being
u member of Congress at the same
time, any employment Us counsel upon
u contingent fee, or otherwise, to obtain