The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1880-08-03

enlargement Of human rights, the pro-
motion Of education, morality. religion.
liberty, order aud all that would tend. to
make us the foremost Nation Of the
earth in the great march of human pros
perity. ] am, with great respect, very
truly yours, VIM. H ENGLISH.
Swayne and Garfield.
HOW THE DOCTRINE OF JUDGE
SWAYNE BEARS on THE CASE
OF GENERAL GARFIELD.
Mr.. DOOlittle Shows How an APP
plicatiOn Came to be Cited as
Quotation.
The following explicit account Of the
way in which the doctrine of Judge
Swanev in the case of Trist vs.. Child
came to be confounded with q direct
opinion of Judge Swayne on the case
of General Garfield has been furnished
to The World by an able lawyer Of
Chicago:
CHICAGO, July %.
To the Editor of the World.
SIR: In reply to your telegram Of
yesterday take pleasure in sending you
the following explicit statement OF the
facts which you ask me for information
In 1874 George R Chittenden brought
suit in the Circuit Court Of Cook County
against the firm OF Mcclellan & Jen-
kins, formerly Mcclellan l. De Culver,
counting upon an agreement to pay him
for procuring contracts for laying pave
ments share in the profits, and alleg-
ing that he had procured such CON-
tract for LAYING 200, 900 square yards of
pavement in the CITY of Washington, the
actual cost of which would be 81 40
per square yard, and the price to be
paid $3.50. To the declaration the de-
fendant fled special pleas to the effect
that the award of the Washington con-
tract was void as against public policy
That plaintiff had obtained from defend
ants checks and drafts for $l00, 900 up
on the representation that so much was
needed to procure the award from the
Washington Board of Public Works.
That plaintiff did pay United States
Marshal Parsons $4,000, and "also
then and there did employ or cause to
he employed J. A. Garfield, then and
there member OF the House OF Repre-.
sentatives and Chairman of the CON-
mittee of Appropriations for said House,
to appear before the said Board, and be-
fore the individuals composing the same,
to solicit and urge upon said board the
award of said contract, and that 10 con-
sideration OF his said employment and
services and official influence then and
there rendered, the said plaintiff did pay,
or cause to he paid him illegally improp-
erly and against public policy. large
sum of money. tc wit. the sum OF S5,-
600, and that in part b. means thereof
the said Board Of Public Works were
then and there moved and induced ille-
gally, improperly and against public poll
cy to make the said award, which said
award, among other things, contained
the folio wing clause or condition, viz
An additional amount o: City thousand
square yards will be awarded you (the
defendants meaning) SO soon as the
hoard are reimbursed by the General
Government on account OF expenditures
around public buildings and grounds, OIL
you (the defendants meaning) will be al.
lowed to lay 1t this season (meaning..the
season Of 1872 il you cai wait until an
appropriation is made for this purpose
(meaning an appropriation of Congress
at $3.50 per square ward. O.
"And these defendants aver that then
and there, and by the terms OF the said
award of said contract, City out of the
200, 900 yards so awarded we're made ia
depend upon future appropriation ol
money to be made by Congress; that
then and there by the usual course and
practice of the House Of Representatives
all bills for such appropriations would
be referred to and reported from the
Committee Of Appropriations, of which
the said ]. A. Garfield was a member
and the Chairman thereof, the said plain
tiff and the said j. A. Garfield and the
said Board of Public Works severaIly
then and there well knowing that the
said J. A Garfield did, could and would
from his official position, exert potent
influence in procuring such appropria
tions by Congress for the purpose men,
toned in said award, and the defendants
say that by means OF the said premises
the said award OF contract mentioned in
the said declaration was then and there
illegal, improper, against public policy
and void, &C."
To the special pleas q demurrer was
filed. and upon the argument the case
of Trist vs.: Childs, 2lst Wallace. AL,
was cited. In that case Judge Swayne
pointed out the distinction between purely
professional services and the sale oi
personal and official influence. and the
applicability Of Judge Swayne's remarks
to the case made in the special pleas
seems to have led to the supposition thai
the language. was actually used by hin
in the Mcclellan case.
The special pleas were held good i
the facts we're as therein stated and ths
plaintiff did not make up an issue of fac
upon them, which, OF course. would have
enabled evidence to have been taken il
the premises.
The case was dismissed at the cost,
of the plaintiff, In May, 1877; so tha
under the language of Judge Swayn'
cited in the case it remains to be show
why the conduct of Mr. James A. Gar
field was not "a sale of official influenc
which no veil can cover" ~
Mr.. DooLITrLE's STATEMENT OF THE CASE
j In q letter to the Rochester Union re
citing the story of the case above refer
red to, Mr.. James r Doolittle sets fort
the points made by him as one. of th
counsel for the defendants, and from Nj
Doolittle's statement here subjoined
is perfectly clear that the correspondent
Of the World at Washington was limo
Gently led by the form in which ths
statement came before him into suppos
ing that he was quoting language &C
tually used by Judge Swayne 10 refer
ence to General Garfield, when be va
really quoting language actually used b.
Judge Swayne in regard to conduct pre-
ciselv like that imputed to General Gar