Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-08-05
The Real Question Concerning the
DeGOlyer Job.


Judge swayne never used General Gar
fields conduct to illustrate the doctrine he
laid down concerning the acceptance by
legislator of fee for official influence. In
a case, however, in which the RESPONSE
bility of the contractors for services rem
dered and expenditures made by the lob
byist who paid this very fee was decided,
Judge swaynes opinion was cited
with great force and effect by
Mr.. Doolittle, q lawyer engaged
in the case, and this payment of S., 900 to
the Chairman Of the House Committee on
Appropriations was brought before the
court to show that the operations for
which the lobbyist sought pay and relm-
bursement were corrupt and against public
policy according to the law as laid down
by Justice Swayne. On this argument the
claim of the lobbyist was refused by Judge
Fsrwell, of the Chicago court.
We grant that had the story, as origi-
nally told, been true it would have been
more effective with those who are influ-
enced more by personal opinions and
declarations than by mere facts and logic,
and we expect such to make the most of
the mistake by which lawyers illustra-
ton OF Justice Swayne's decision was at
tributed to the Justice himself, but how
can this appear of any consequence to
thoughtful peopleS The fact is that Cen
eral Garfield did accept from the notori-
Gus "Diok" Parsons, who was counsel for
lobby pressing a paving contract on
the District of Columbia Ring, a
fee of S., 600. He made no argument to
earn that fee and there is no evidence
that he even prepared brief in the case.
He in fact did nothing whatever in the
way of mere legal seEyice that lawyers
with ten times his reputation at the bar
would not have gladly done for $4,000.
How could General Garfield have imagined
that the large sum of $4,000 was, then,
simply legal fee? He was not merely a
member of Congress, but the Chairman
of the House Committee on Appropria-
tions. The lobbyists had no doubt as to
what the $4,000 was for, for they imme-
diately began telegraphing their friends
that they had secured the Chairman
of the House Committee on Appropria-
tions and that the Importance of the
acquisition could not be overestimated,
as he held the purse strings of the Nation,
True, Gen. Garfield was not responsible
for their opinion, but how could he have
imagined that the enormous fee paid hin
was simply for the slight, II any, services
he rendered as lawyer? He was not {
famous lawyer accustomed to $1,000 fees
and to accepting them as mere matter o
course. How could he, then, have failet
to comprehend that il was not his lega
abilities but his political and official inhu
ence which these lobbyists wanted t.
buy?
Now, this is not abuse nor railing accuse
ton. 1t is serious matter worthy tn
deliberate consideration of honest men
1t cannot be ignored nor be drowned /
clamor over the mistake of newspape
correspondent in attributing a denuncis
ton Of General Garfield's conduct to tn
wrong man. The vital question is nc
who uttered the declaration that Genert
Garfeld's action was q sale of his oficit
influence which no veil could cover, bu
whether that declaration is true.
is an exceedingly important que
ton because on the answer to
depends, in part, the decision by fair ar
just men as to whether this people shou
say to General Garfield as was said to Il
servant in the parable: "Thou hast bee
faithful over few things will NAL
''thee ruler over many things"