Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1880-08-12
Mr.. Garfield In Court.

nection with the De Golyer pavement
as shown by the records of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, with the
decision of Judge Farwell. It is not
particularly cheerful reading for Kepub-
fcans:
State of Illinois, Cook County Cir
emit Court. George r. Chittenden VS..
Robert McClelland ct al. May term
1875, before Farwell, Circuit Judge,
No. ~, 181.-The plaintiff, by E. A.
Storrs. Esq, brought suit against the
defendants upon contract, by which
they. agreed to pay him one-third of all
the profits upon all paving contracts
which he would obtain for De Golyer
and McClelland from Boards of Public
Works in Eastern cities. The declara-
ton alleged that he obtained contract
for paving 100000 square yards from
the Board of Public Works of the Dis
trict of Columbia, at $3.50 per yard,
when it would cost only $3.50 to lay it
down. That the profits were $500, 900,
and claimed the defendant should pay
him 100000 at least.
The defendants pleaded in substances:
81. That the contract was void on its
face.
:, So That it was obtained by the
plaintiff by improper influences, against
public policy, and therefore was void.
The plea set out that it was obtained
mainly through the influence of James
A. Garfield, then member of Congress
and Chairman of the Committee on Ap-
preparations in the House of Represent
atives; that Garfield was to receive a
fee of $4,000 for obtaining it; that the
contract contained clause for $1,000
additional square yards contingent upon
an appropriation to be made by Con-
gress; that by the usual course of bust
ness all bills for such appropriations
came from the committee of which said
Garfield was then Chairman; that he
did subseq entity report a bill appro-
priating 81, PAL 900 out of which said
pavement could be paid for; and that
for his influence and services he did
receive the sum of $4,000.
SO. Another plea set out the facts
above stated and alleged that the said
plaintiff and said Garfield and said
Board of Public Works then NELL EneU
that 1t aUas not the arguments of said
Garfield as larger, but his influence
as a member of Congress havi,ag poWer
ON the appropriations to be made that the
plaintiff had sought and obtained and
paid for, and therefore the contract
was illegal. against public policy and
Void.''
The plaintiff demurred to these pleas;
the defendants joined in demurrer.
The Court sustained the pleas, and
held that the contract was void as
against public policy.
Mr.. j. r. DoolittIe, who appeared as
counsel for the defendants, submitted
among others the following points. in
writing, May IA, 1875, Judge Farwen
presiding:
"a. The pleas are good. They set
out in substance that the contract was
obtained by the plaintiff of the Board of
Public Works of the District of Column
bia by improper influences. That the
contract was in part to the amount of
$4,000 square yards-upon its face,
contingent upon future appropriation
to be made by Congress-; that the plain
tiff employed James A. Garfield, then
being a member of Congress and Chair
man of the Committee on Appropria-
: tions of the House of Representatives.
agreeing TO pay him a contingent fee of
the said contract of the Board of Public
Works; that by his influence and per-
suasion he did procure the same, for
which he received the sum of $1,000.
That afterward bill was reported
from the committee of which he was
Chairman, and did pass the House
and pass Congress and become a
law, appropriating the sum of ST.
241, 900 out of which the pay
ment under said contract could be made
by said Board of Public Works; that
the plaintiff and the defendant and the
said Garfield, and the members of the
said Board of Public Works well knew
at the time of his said employment, 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 appropriation to carry
such Contract into effect by said Board
of Public Works. and that by means of
the premises the said contract was, in
fact, obtained by improper influences,
against public policy, and is void.
'.5. 1t is no sufficient answer to say
that Garfield was at the same time q
member of the legal profession. His
being a member of Congress at the
same time and employment as coun-
sci upon a contingent fee, or other
wise, to obtain contract from a
board of public officers, dependent
upon the future act OF Congress TO 1ul-
fill. is against public policy and void.
SO. That the plaintiff Chittenden
well knew and intended that the influ-
ence of General Garfield. as a member
of Congress, was to be used in pro-
ducing the contract, rather then his
arguments as counselor at law, is evil
dent from his letter to the defendants.
set out in their special plea, in which
he says: The influence of General Gar
field has been secured by yesterday,
last night and to-day's labors. He car
ries the purse of the United States-the
Chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priations--and is the strongest man in
Congress, and with our friends my de-
mand is to-day not less than one hum
dred thousand more-two hundred
thousand in all. Everything is in the
best shape, the connections complete,
and, have reason to believe, satisfac-
tory. can hardly realize
that we have General Garfield with us.
1t is rare and very gratifying. All the