The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-08-26
THE DE- GOLYER BRIBH.
Judge DoolittIe, Of Counsel in the
Case, UnfoldS a Tale,
COnYicting Garfield of Sac of Official
influence to the Lobby.
The Facts Set Forth Plainly and Truth.
fully by One Who Knows.

llere lS OnS OlueI molIel
which illustrates not only the same
weakness Of Garfed's character, but in
nv Judgment shows an entire want of
proper appreciation Of the duties of a
person of high office. l refer to the De-
Golyer pavement job and $4,000 received
by Garfield for obtaining it. My knowl'
edge of this came to me professionally in
1875. So mach has been said of late of
the case of Chittenden vs. McClelland ct
al, that it is justice for me to make
brief statement that you may under
stand how far Garfield was involved in
the matter.
One Chittenden agreed with DeGol-
yer and McClelland, contractors of Chi.
Cago, to obtain paving jobs for them
from the boards of public works in east
ern cities. He was to get the jobs and
they were to fulfill them. But he was to
have one.third Of all the net profits for
the getting of them, they furnishing all
the capital, material and work. Chitten'
den went on to Washington, where Boss
Shepard was in the height Of his glory.
Through the il hueuCe of Garfield, main
ly, Chittenden got contract, awarded
by Boss Shepard and his colleagues, to
pave 100000 yards at So 50 per yard,
when the actual cost of laying it down
was only $l5O, leaving, if the contract
should be fulfilled, a net profit of $780,.
900.
Chittenden sued McClelland, and
Charles E. jenkins, who had bought out
DeGolyer, and was substituted in his
place, upon his contract to receive his
one-third of the profits claiming, at
least, 100000. E. A, Storrs, Esq'r, very
ingenious, able, and eloquent lawyer of
Chicago, the same who defended Bah.
cock in St. Louis, was attorney and
counsel for Chittenden. Myself and my
son, ], R. Doolittle, irp were retained to
defend. We pleaded specially. The sub
stantial defense set up was, that Chltten-
den obtained the contract by improper
influences, against public policy, and
therefore, the contract was void. The
pleas averred also that the plaintiff well
knew that it was void and was obtained
by improper Influences.
The facts set out in the pleas are too
Voluminous for me TO read them, as l
could if had time. But they set out in
substance; That the contract was to the
amount of $4,000 square yards, upon its
face, contingent upon future appropri-
alton to be made by Congress; that the
plaintiff employed James A. Garfield,
then being a member of Congress and
Chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priation oil the House of Representatives,
agreeing to pay him contingent fee Of
$500. Provided that he would obtain the
said contract of the Board of Public
Works; but by his influence and persua.
sion he did procure the same, for which |
he received the sum Of S5,000 that af-
terward a bill was reported from the |
committe of which he was Chairman,
and did pass the House, and passed Con.
gress and became law, appropriating |
the sum of 81 241 900, out Of which the
pavement under said contract could be |
paid for by said Board of Public Works,
that the plaintiff, and the defendants,
and the said Garfield, and the members
of the said Board Of Public Works well
knew at the time of his said employ
ment, and at the time Of bis service in
procuring said contract, that the said
Garfield from his Official position did
and would have potent influence in
procuring the passage Of such appropria.
ton 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.
In order to show that the contract
awarded was dependent upon the future
of Congress, the plea fur.
ther sets out the words of the contract as
follows, viz:
"An additional amount of fifty thous-
and square yards will be awarded you so
soon as the Board are reimbursed by the
general government on account of ex.
penditures around the public buildings
and grounds, or you will be allowed to
lay it this season if you can wait until
an appropriation is made for the pur.
pose at $3.50 per square yard"
In order to show that the plaintiff
knew that it was the il huence of Genl
Garfield as a member of Congress, and
not the arguments Of Gen'l Garfield as a
lawyer, that was sought and paid for, the
pleas further set out letter from Chit.
tenden to DeGolyer and McClelland,
dated at the Arlington House, at Wash.
ington, in which he said:
"The influence of Gen. Garfield has
been secured by yesterday, last night.
and to.day's lsborE; he carries the purse
of the United States-the Chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, and
is the strongest man in Congress and
with our friends. My demand ia TODAY
not less than one hundred thousand
more two hundred thousand in all
Everything is in the best of shspe-the
connections complete, and have yea-
sons to believe satisfactory. IL
can hardly realize that we have General
Garfield with US. 1t is rare-and very
gratifying, All appropriations Of the
district come from him."
The pleas also alleged that Garfeld's
compensation was to be $1,000 if he sue.
ceeded in getting the contract, and was
to be nothing if he did not succeed, Il
alleges that he did not succeed, and was
paid that sum.