The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-07-07
CHIrTENDEN's SUIT.
How General Garfield Appears in Court.
NEW York Sun.

How General Garfield Appears in Court.
New York Sum-
George R. Chittenden was the agent or
lobbyist who procured for DeGolyer & Nc
Clellan, of Chicago, their contract to lay
wooden pavements in the streets OF Wash
ington. The pavement was rotten, but the
profits were enormous. OF these profits
Chittenden claimed % per cent, or about
500 900, for his share in the job. But De
Golyer & Mcclellan, who bad cheerfully
paid James A Garfield bis lee" of S., 900.
refused 20 pay the larger sum demanded By
the agent, and Chittenden brought suit
sgainst them in the Cook County Courts.
The contractors did not dispute Chitten-
denis services. Through their counsel, ex-
Senator Doolittle, they SET up peculiar
defense-that Chittendenis claim was void
and against public policy, because he had
obtained the contract by improper influences,
having bribsd GaIfsld, the Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations. The pay
meDt of 5000 to Garfield, it was held, was
not for "the arguments Of said Garfield as
lawyer, hut for his influence as a member OF
Congress having power over the appropris-
lions to be made"
The plaintiff, Chittenden. through his
counsel, Emory A. Storrs demurred to these
pleas The defendants joined In the de-
murrer, and on May IA, 1875. ex-senator Doc
little submitted the following points to
Judge farWel OF tne LOOK OOunby OllCulI
Court:
The pleas are good. They set out in sub
stance that the contract was obtained by the
plaintiff of the Board of Public Works of the
District OF Columbia by improper influences;
that the contract was in part-t0 the amount
of so, 000 square yards-upOn its face, contingent
upon future appropriation to be made by
Congress; that the plaintiff employed James
A. Garfield, then being member of Congress
and Chairman of the Committee on Appro-
prOpriatiOns of the House OF Representatives,
agreeing TO pay him q contingent fee of IS, 00l,
provided he would obtain the said contract of
the Board of Public Works; that by his tnfiu-
ence and persuasion he did procure the same.
for which ne received the sum of 5000; that
afcerward a bill was reported from the Conn
mittee or which he was Chairman, ana did
pass the House, and pass Congress, and be-
out of Which the payment under said con-
tract could be paid for by said Board
of Public Works; that the plain
tiff and the defendant and the said Gar
Works well knew at the time of his said en-
plOyment, and at the time of his service in
procuring said contract, that said Garfield,
from his official position, did and would have
such appropriation TO carry said contract Into
effect, by said Board OF Public Works, and
that by means of the premises the said con-
tract was, In fact, obtained by improper In
huences, against public policy, and Is VOID.
IL Is no sufficient answer TO say that Garneld
was at the same time n member of the legal
profession. HIS being member OF Congress
at the same time, any employment as cOunsei
upon a contingent fee, or otherwise. 70 obtain
contract from board OF public officers, de-
fulnll, Is against public policy and void :.
That the plaintiff Chittenden well knew and
intended that the influence Of General Car
60. - member Of Congress was 70 be used