The Portland daily press., 1880-07-07

WOOucu pavement, anu Vi bIt MY -tHIto ulll0S
of wooden pavement laid in Washington there
were $4,000 square yards of it only of the De
Golyer pavement. There are ,005, 900 square
yards of wooden pavement laid in Washing
ton, and $4,000 of it only was of this patent
There are ten or twelve different kinds of
wooden pavement in Washington, and only
one-twelfth of this is of this kind. and the
price of this pavement was fixed by board of
engineers before Mr.. Parsons or had word
to say on the subject. 1t was only question
which of the two or three or ten pavements
will you adopt, and am here today to affirm
that it is the best wood pavement that was
ever laid. Now, I do not believe much in
wood pavements as compared with concrete or
some other form of ravements, and this board
of engineers recommended concrete in pre-
ference to wood. But what were the facts?
There were thirty-two different streets in
Washington along which the people petitioned
to have wooden pavement. They preferred
wood pavement. 1t was cheaper than the asp
haltum. They wanted wood pavement and
the American people generally believe in
wood pavement, and the question was, If the
people want the wood pavement and are deter
mined to have it, which pavement shall we
give them, the best, or not the best?
Now, Il have before me here, what I had
when made the argument, certificates from
Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco and all the
other cities where the pavement was laid, that
it stood better than any other wood pavement
that had ever been laid, and in the report of
the committee on investigation in Washington
letter was received from the Board of Public
works in Oh icago dated Oct 3, 1874, in these
words: "Since 1869 there have been laid here
in Chicago $50 600 square yards of the De Col
yer pavement, and thus far it stands we'll and
in good condition" There is twice as much
OF that pavement in Chicago today as there is
in Washington.
Now, I will tell you another fact about it.
The testimony before the committee discloses
the following facts: That in the city of New
York they paid $3.50 to $3.50 per square
yard. In the city Of Brooklyn they paid SIS
per square yard, and in the city of Balti-
MORE for putting down Nicolson pavement
(which is not SO expensive) they paid 81
per square yard. Now, all the De Golyer
pavement put down in Washington was put
down at $3.50 per square yard under this tariff
of prices fixed by the board of Public Works
gineers. Well, now, fellow citizens, who has
raised this storm of criticism about the De
Golyer pavement? Who? Early last winter
several of US came to the conclusion that the
Board OF Public Works was an expensive ma
chine; that 1t was costing the city of Washing
ton too much; that twas overlooking them
with taxes and that we were bound to pay too
much money out of the treasury to keep up our
end Of the business. But we set on foot an in
quiry into the cause of the large expenditure,
ed, and they have published some 1900 pages
of q report. They have gone over the whole
ground of the doings of that Board of Public
Works and the ci,y government, and as a re-
suit Of it we have abolished that form Of gov
eminent and had the President adpoint COM
missioners, and he has appointed Gov .Dennison
of our state, as one of them, to manage the af
fairs of the District of Columbia until winter.
That committee of investigation went over the
whole ground of this business in Washington.
1t was a committee that had Senator Thurman,
of this state, on it for one, Judge Jewett of
Columbus for another man, who is now
President of the Erie railroad both of them
Democrats of the strongest stamp. We had
one from the House as chairman of that COM
mittee, Judge Wilson of Indiana, one of the
strongest and ablest and best of our members
and they went over this ground most thorough
ty and severely. Mr.. Parsons went before that
committee and told them all he knew about
this pavement; told them what he knew of its
merits, and told them that he and argued
that case. 1t was early in the session when he
told them that. Now what has been said about
that in Washington? Don't you think some of
the one hundred Democrats would have been
exceedingly willing TO hit him a blow in the
head if they had discoverered anything in that
to find fault with? The committee made its
report in full, and not only made no possible
reflection on me, but when asked about it said
there was nothing whatever in the case that
reflected in the slightest degree upon Mr.. Gar
field.
Now, in the midst of this tempest that was
raised in the gainesville teapot few weeks
ago, the Hon. George W. Steele of Painesville
wrote letter to o,t tss committee who had
back the following letter:
"CoNNERsyILE, Ind, Aug. 1, 1874.
The Hon. Geo. W. Steele:
Dear Sir-To the request for information as
to whether or not the action of Gen. Garfield
In connection with the affairs of the District
OF Columbia was the subject of condemnation
by the committee that recently had those af-
fairs under consideration, answer that it was
not, nor was there, in my opinion, any evil
dence that would have warranted any unfav-
orable criticism upon his conduct.
1.-THE facts disclosed by the evidence, so far
as he is concerned, are briefly these:
1.-THE Board of Public Works was consider
ing the question as to the kind of payements
that should be laid. There was a contest as to
respective merits of various wooden pavements.
Mr.. Parsons represented, as attorney, the De
Golyer & MoClelland patent, and, being called
away from Washington about the time the
hearing was to be had before the Board of
Public Works on this subject, procured Gen.
Garfield to appear before the board in his
stead and argue tho merits of this patent
This he did, and this was the whole of his
connection with the matter. 1t was not a
question as to the kind of contract that should
be made, but as to whether this particular
pavement should be laid. The criticism of the
committee was not upon the pavement, in favor
Of which Gen. Garfield argued, but upon the
contract made in reference to it; and there was
no evidence which would warrant the conclu-
sion that he had anything to do with the latter.
Very respectfully, etc.,
JAMES WILSON"
Now, fellow-citizens, it is not pleasant for
for me to he reading things of that sort con-
corning myself, that the man who had charge
Of the investigation in the District of Column
bia, the man who wrote the report on the part
Of the House, who was the chairman of the
hn kpov oil fba foot ~, 81
it, says there was nothing whatever in the case
that in the slightest degree reflected on me. 1t
is left to the excessively virtuous Judge of the
Probate Court of Trumbull County to discover
that this "De Golyer business" was fearful
business on the part of Gen. Garfield. Tire
mendous applause)
II there is any gentleman in this hall who
has any question to ask in regard to the De
Golyer pavement business, / should be very
glad to bear it.
Q-Was the appropriation for the paym ents
for the pavement msde before or after it was
accepted by the board?
Gen. Garfield am very glad to answer
thatquestion' By the first act of the Legisla-
ture of the District Of Columbia no contract
was to be made, no work was to be done, ex-
cept upon appropriations already made. Con-
gress had adjourned. The appropriations for
the District of Columbia were made before 1
touched or had anything to do with this mat
ter. 1t is true that the next year there were
appropriations made for the District of Column
bia, but the appropriation that Congress made
never had anything to say about one pavement
or another. Congress knew no more about
the De Golyer pavement, or any pavement,
than you in Warren did. 1t simply made the
appropriation to pay for paving in front of its
own building, if it thought proper to do so,
and that is all.
understand that Mr.. Parsons was retained
by these parties in Chicago, and they paid him
retaining fee, of $1,000 for his services,
whether he succeeded or not. And they were
to pay him $4,000 as a contingent fee if he
succeed. Mr. Parsons had done the bulk of
the work. He came to me saying there were
$4,000 depending upon his success, of which
he would pay me half IN case made the ar
gument and was successful. suppose that is
fair explanation. 1 understand some gentle
men think it is large fee. Well, it is
large fee; but it was nothing for that Either
all that was done went for nothing, or else it
would be more, i don't know that those gen.
tlemen said it was large fee when Judge
Trumbull made an argument in the Supreme
Court and received $4,000 out of the United
States Treasury for it.
@ Gen. Garfield. allow me to ask YOU one
question: What question of law was submitted
70 Won in that case? Was IL a uuastion az Iow