The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1880-08-18
The Dei;olyer Pavement.

The DeGolyer Pavement.
Mr.. Bradley told N at the court house
last Saturday that the S5,0w paid 10
James \. Garfield 10y DcGolycr and
Met lcllan WAS an attorneys fee for aid
ing them To get the Board of Public
Works of the District of Columbia to
adopt the DeGolyer patent pavement
material Ia pave the streets of the city
Of Washington. He further said II was
legitimate and nothing improper
about il.
How do you know, Mr.. Bradley" DO
you know more than the records in the
! case show, az more than General Gar
field himself knows? What did Gar
field know about pavement material
and the different patents thereof suili-
cient la make his services worth 5000?
What services a. IN attorney did he
render!
Let us call Gen. Garfield 10 the stand.
Gen. Garfield, on direct examination
before the Real Estate Pool Committee,
in 1877, sworc that he was employed rs
IN attorney in the ease, and "madc II
very full and careful brief" That brief
has never been seen 10y anybody. IL
has never been published. Mr.. Garfield,
himself, in the cro>s-eXaminatiOn 10y
Mr.. Nickerson, sworc that hc had not
appeared in the ease, either 10y brief or
otherwise. Here is his testimony ON
that point, as il appears in the official
report of the Glover Investigating Com
mittee.
Question 10y Mr.. Nirkrrson: Seen.
Garfield, did you file with the Board of
Public Works of the District a brief or
opinion, written, printed or otherwise,
upon the subject of the DeGolyer patent
pavement"
\. al could not say ] did"
q. "Did You at any time appear be-
fore the Board and make any argument
whatever:'
4. al do not remember that | did,
but ! did speak Ia Gov. Shepherd on
the subject, giving my opinion in its
favor"
q. "Governor Shepherd has testified
that you once spoke la him casually on
the subject. How much cash did YOU
receive from DeGolyer * Met lellan, or
either of them, or their agents, at any
time, for your agency in the procure
ment of This particular contract"
\. Give Thousand dollars"
Ii will be observed here that he first
swears that lac made II very full and
careful brief, and yet that cannot he
found; al least has never seen the light.
Such documents rs lawyers briefs and
pleadingS are generally preserved.
When Mr.. Garfield gets before the
Glover Investigating Committee and is
examined 10y Mr.. Nickerson. he SAYS,
81 could not say that did," file brief
or opinion, written OF printed, upon the
subject of the patent pavement Now,
if he wrote brief for which his ser
vices Were worth 5000, is it reasonable
Ia suppose that he would forget whether
he did or not. Is there Il lawyer in
America who ever earned 5000 fee
ami then forgot about il? He further
says in that examination, ~ do not re-
member that | did appear before the
Board of Public Works, hut | spoke to
Governor Shepherd on the subject, Civ
ing my opinion in its favor. Oh, how
forgetful,
When first examined he swears he
was employed as an attorney and made
Il very full and careful brief. When
examined again he could not say that
he did file Il brief or opinion, written or
printed. Could not say that he ever
appeared before the Board at all, but
did speak 10 Gov. Shepherd about it.
Now, is ii reasonable To suppose that
DeGolyer and Mcclellan being Shrewd,
careful business men as they were,
would give Garfield 5000 to speak To
Governor Shepherd, one of the Board,
IN IA private conversation and give il as
his opinion that the Diet olyer pavement
was the best. The idea i. ridiculous.
Detiolyer and Mcclellan knew that the
money had To come from Congress:
that before ii came the appropriation
committee had 10 act upon and report
II 10 Congress; that Garfield was chair
man of that committee, and 10y reason
thereof had great influence for or
against AN appropriation, and the 81, 900
was given Ia influence the appropria-
ton Ia he made To them, and not for
his services rs an attorney.
II could have been nothing else but
his vote and his influence, given in
favor of the appropriation asked for 10y
DeGolyer X Mcclellan, from whom he
received 5000, for his own testimony
shows that he performed no other ser
vice in return for that 5000 fee, than
10 vote the appropriation asked for his
employers, through the Appropriation
Committee of which he was chairman.
IL a man who would receive a
fee to influence his action as a Legislator
anything else hut a hribe-talier, and is
a bribe-taker the kind of material out
of which Presidents should he made:
These are questions To he determined 10y
each voter for himself
The District Convention.