The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1880-08-13

nection with tho do Golyer pavement
- shown by the records Of IL Circuit
Court Of Cook County. Illinois, with the
Of Judge Farwell. II Is not
particularly cheerful reading for kepub-
leans:
State OF Illinois. Cook County Cir
cult Court. George X. Chittenden vs..
Robert McClelland OF nj. May term.
1875, before Farwel. Circuit Judge,
No. 12.lSi.-Thc plaintiff, by +. A.
Storrs. Esq, brought suit against the
defendants upon contract, by which
they agreed 10 pay him one-third OF all
the profits upon all paving contracts
which he would obtain for DE Golyer
and McClelland from Boards Of Public
Works in Eastern cities. The DECLARE
ton alleged that he obtained a contract
for paving 200.0cc square yards from
the BOARD Of Public Works Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia, Mt $3.50 per yard.
when II would cost only Sl.5O to lay It
down. That the profits were $500. 900.
and claimed the defendant should pay
him 800, 900 at least.
The defendants pleaded In substance:
IL. That the contract was r0sd on Us
face.
~. That It was obtained by the
plaintiff by Improper influences, against
public policy, and therefore was void.
The plea set out that II was obtained
mainly through the influence OF James
"A. Garfield, then member of Congress
and Chairman of the Committee on APP
preparations in the House Of Represent
atiyes: that Garfield was TO receive q
fee Of 1000 for obtaining it, that the
contract contained clause for 30, 600
additional square yards contingent upon
an appropriation to be made by Con-
gress: that by the usual course Of bust
ness all bills for such appropriations
came from the committee OF which said
Garfield was then Chairman; that he
did subsequently report bill appro-.
priating 81. 900 out Of which said
pavement could be paid for; and that
for his influence and services he did
receive the sum OF 5000.
IS. Another plea set out the facts
above stated and alleged that the said
plaintiff and said Garfield and said
Board Of Public Works then weH knew
that IL ras not the arguments Of said
Garfield as idwyer, but his influence
as q member Of Congress hdUtng poUer
on The appropriations 10 be male that the
plaintiff had sought and obtained and
paid for, and therefore the contract
was illegal. against public policy and
void"
The plaintiff demurred to these pleas;
the defendants joined in demurrer.
The Court sustained the pleas, and
held that the contract was void as
against public policy.
Mr.. ,. II. Doolittle. who appeared as
counsel for the defendants. submitted
among others the following points. in
writing. May IA, 1875, Judge Farwell
presiding:
"a. The pleas are good. They SCI
out in substance that the contract was
obtained by the plaintiff of the Board Of
Public Works If the District Of Colum-
bia by improper influences. That the
contract was in part TO the amount Of
$4,000 square yards-upon its face,
contingent upon future appropriation
70 be made by Congress; that the plain
til employed James A. Garfield. then
being q member Of Congress and Chair
man Of the Committee on Appropria,
tons Of the House Of Representatives
agreeing 10 pay him contingent fee Of
$1,000. provided he would obtain the
the said contract Of the Board Of Public
Works: that by his influence and per
suasion he did procure the same. fol
which he received the sum OF 5000
That afterward bill was reported
from the committee Of which he wa
Chairman, and did pass the Hous'
and pass Congress and become |
law, appropriating the sum OF ~,
24l.OOO out Of which the pay
ment under said contract could be mad
by said Board Of Public Works; tina
the plaintiff and the defendant and tn
said Garfield, and the members Of tn
said Board Of Public Works well knew
At the time Of his said employment. AM
At the time Of his service in procuring
said contract, that said Garfield. fror
his official position. did and would hav
a potent influence in procuring th
passage Of such appropriation TO carr
such contract into effect by said Boar
Of Public Works. and that by means 3
the premises the said contract was, !
fact. obtained by improper influence:
against public policy, and Is void.
IS. Il Is no sufficient answer 10 sa
that Garfield was nj the same time
member Of the legal profession. Il
being member Of Congress at IN
same time and employment rs couI
sci upon n contingent fee, or othel
wise. 10 obtain contract from
board Of public officers. depender
upon the future act Of Congress to fu
fill. is against public policy aud voi'
80. That the plaintiff Chittcnde
well knew and intended that the inIl'
ence OF General Garfield. a. a membs
Of Congress, was to be used in pr
ducing the contract, rather tnen p
arguments as counselor al law, = ev
dent from his letter to the defendant
set ont IN their special plea, in whic