The daily gazette., 1880-07-02
Garfield In Court.

0UTJt6CU Ut COUTts
George r. Chittenden was the agent
or lobbyist who procured for De Golyer
u Mcclellan of Chicago their contract
TO lay wooden pavements in the streets
OF Washington. The pavement was
rotten, but the profits were enormous.
OF these profits Chittenden claimed
twenty five per cent, or about 500, 900
for his share in the job. But De Golyer
q Mcclellan, who had cheerfully paid
James A. Garfield his 'fee" of $5,0 900
refused 20 pay the larger sum demanded
by the agent, and Chittenden brought
suit against them in the Cook County
courts.
The contractors did not dispute
Chittenden's services. Through their
counsel, ex-senator Doolittle, they set
| up peculiar defence-that Chittenden's
claim was void and against public poll
cy, because he had obtained the contract
by improper influences, having bribed
Gar6eld,the Chairman ofthe Committee
on Appropriations. The payment of
| $1,000 to Garfield, 1t was held, was not
| for "the arguments of said Garfield as a
lawyer, but for his influence as mem
Der of Congress having power over the
| appropriations to be made"
The plaintiff, Chittenden, through his
counsel, Emory A. Sotrrs, demurred
to these pleas. The defendants Joined
in the demurrer, and on May 18th, 1875,
ex-senator Doolittle submitted the fol-
lowing points to Judge Farwell of the
Cook County Circuit Court: ~
The pleas are good. They set out in
substance that the contract was obtained
i l. fI,n Ia, 80 81 2Ix<. Af D,.lx1 H.
Works of the District of Columbia by
improper influences; that the contract
was in part-to the amount of $4,000
square yards-upon its face, contingent
up future appropriation to be made by
Congress-; that the plaintiff employed
James A. Garfield, then being member
of Congress and Chairman of the Com
mittee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives, agreeing to pay him
a contingent fee of $1,000, provided he
would obtain the said contract of the
Board of Public Works; that by his in
fiuence and persuasion he did procure
the same, for which he received the sum
of S. 200; that afterward bill was re-
ported from the Committee of which he
was Chairman, and did pass the House,
and pass Congress, and bocame a law,
appropriating the sum of 81 "a ], 900 out
of which the payment under said con-
tract could be paid for by said Board of
Public Works; that the plaintiff and the
defendant and the said Garfield and the
members of said Board of Public Works
well knew at the time of his said en-
ployment and at the time of his service
in procuring said contract that said
Garfield, from his official position did
and would have potent influence in
procuring the passage of such appro-
prlation to carry such contract into effect
by said Board of Public Works and that
by means of the promises..the said con-
tract was in fact obtained by improper
influences, against public policy, and is
void.
1t was no sufficient answer to say thai
Garfield was at the same time amembel
of the legal profession. His being 9
member of Congress at the same time
any employment as counsel upon a con
tingent fee, or otherwise, to obtain 0
contract from board of public officers
dependent uDon the future action ol
Congress to fulfill, is againstpublic policy
and void.
That the plaintiff Chittenden we'll knew
and intended that the influence of Gen.
Garfield, as a membe of Congress, was
to be used In procuring the contract,
rather than his arguments as counsel
lor at law, is evident from his letter to
the defendants, set out in their specia
plea, IN which he says: THE influence
of Gen. Garfield has been secured by
yesterday, last night and to-days labors
He carries the purse of the United States
the Chairman of the Committee OF
Appropr,ations-and is the strongest
man In Congress. and with my friends
my demand Is, to-day, not less than one
hundred thousand more-two hundred
in all. Everything is in the best shape,
the connexions complete, and | have
reason to believe, satisfactory. 1
can hardly realize that we have Gen
Garfield with us. 1t is rare, and very
gratifying. All the appropriations of the
District come from him."
Judge Farwell overruled the demurrer,
sustained the pleas, and held that the
contract was against public policy and
void, because It had been corruptly OBJ
| tained.