The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-09-02
r starh COuug nem0at ann @hap, gharsaap St4t sao

field did subscribe for the Credit Mobi
lier stock and did receive 1929 of his
dividends therefor, although he made
solemn oath that he did not, can be rec
onciled with the notion Of his innocence.
THE De eoLYER PAVING CONTRACT.
The iaefaceable shame and disEonor
which attaches to Mr.. GArfsld's name
on account of his connection with this
contract are due to the fact that he was
a member of Congress and chairman of
committee on appropriations at the time
be solicited and was maiAly instrumen'
tai in obtaining it from the board of pub
lie works of Washington City. The i'm.
provements in that city are paid for by
appropriations made by Congress and, at
the time (1S72), the board had exhausted
every resource of local taxation and Of
appeal to Congress, so that contracts
were wholly dependent upon that body
for remuneration. The appropriations
must originate in or be approved by the
committee of which Mr.. Garfield was
chairman, and it was under such circum-
stances that The bargained for and after
wards received contract for DeGolyer
& Mcclellan. His fee was to come out
of and was paid out of the appropriation
of 81, ,241 900 which his committee re
ported to the House.
The committee of investigation reCeiv.
ed abundant testimony in proof of the
facts here stated. Ch:ttenden, the agent
of DeGolyer & Mcclellan for procuring
the contract, stated on oath that he ex.
pended $97, 900 besides his expenses in
procuring the contract; that he employed
Richard Q. Parsons, Marshal of the Su.
preme Court, as counsel to argue the case
before the board; that Parsons employed
Garfield; that he (Chittenden) gave Par.
sons retainer of So, 900 and promised
him 10000 more upon his securing the
contract. Parsons swears, and Garfield
admits the fact, that he gave the latter
half the contingent fee 20 assist him in
his laborious legal investigation. But
when cross examined Parsons admitted
that there was no legal question involved
and that his sole function was that ofex
planning to the board the superior excel.
lencies of the DeGolyer over other wood
pavements. And how Parsons came by
his profound learning on this reCondite
subject is satisfactorily explained by his
employer, .Chittenden. For the latter
informs US that he spent thirty days in
explaining it to his counsel. Chittenden
says that he gave Parsons all the infor.
nation that he got on the subject. Par
SONS made a two hours speech on the
merits of the patent to the board of pub.
lie works, and Governor Shepherd con-
firms the statement, adding that "he ex.
hausted the subject and the board" For
his thirty days schooling under Chitten.
den and his two hours recitation before
the board, Parsons received $4,000 for
his share. And now for Mr.. Garfield.
Governor Shepherd says: General Gar
field spoke to me about it once; said tnat
Mr.. Parsons had employed him to assist
him in preparing brief of the argument
or something of the kind and he had
gone into the pavement pretty thorough.
ly and was satisfied that it was good
thing. One of the arguments used, l rec.
olleCt, was to the effect that we should
give the West show; that all our con.
tractors were Eastern men and they
were the largest paving firm in the West
who were prepared to do the work, who
had done very large amount Of it, and
that they should have an opportunity to
put some down here. Finally the board
met and after thorough y considering the
subject awarded a contract to DeGoIyer
& Mcclellan"
This two to five minutes conversation
with Governor Shepherd was the consid.
GRAFTON for which General Garfield re.
ceived his fee of S., 900 out of the appro.
priation of 81 PAL 900 to the District paw.
ing fund.
Chittenden testifes that he paid the
Rev. William Calvin Brown, an ex Epis
copal clergyman, $4,000 for his promise
to aid in securing the contract Ga cross.
examination he admitted that Brown
was a casual hotel acquaintance, of whom
he had never known before and of whom
he knew nothing. He was still more lib.
eral III putting out his money where it
would do the most good" in his dealings
with one Kirkland, also casual hotel
self.introduCed, of whom
he had never heard before and knew
To this lucky fellow he ad-
vanced the sum of $4,000 to be used at
his discretion for the procurement of the
contract. The testimony shows that nei-
ther of these men eyer had any inter.
course with the board and the conclusion
to any sane mind is that they were pals
Of Chittenden, employed to aid him in
svindling his employers, DeGolyer &
Mcclellan. 1t was Mr.. Garfeld's inau.
enCe as chairman of the committee of
appropriations which secured the con.
tract. Governor Shepherd disposes of
the question as to the weight of Parsons
two hours argument By the remark that
it exhausted the board" Parsons was
retained for his supposed influence with
his /" old friend" Governor Cooke; aud
according to Chittenden's letters to De.
Golyer q Mcclellan, and used by them
in the Chicago or Cook county Circuit
Court, the retention of Garfield was bar.
gained for with Parsons.
The suit in the IlliLois court was by
Chittenden against Mcclellan & Jenkins,
the latter being successor to DeGolyer,
deceased. 1t was brought on the contract
between the parties for Chittenden's
share of the profits on the 200, 900 square
yards Of paving, which was to cost 81 40
per square yard and to be paid for at the
rate Of $3.50 This left margin of So 10
profit on the square yard, or $4,000 on
the contract, provided it had been car
ried out. There was also conditional
agreement of the board to give the par
ties 1000 square yards more when Con.
gress should make the appropriation, or
If the contractors would do the work and
wait for pay.
Mcclellan & Jenkins resisted payment
on the ground that the contract with the
board of public works was corrupt and
that the private agreement between the
parties made under the corruptly OBJ
4