The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-09-30
En1ttiraI.
GARFIELD, DEeoLYER d co.

Mr.. Garfield secured pavement con-
tract for DeGolyer & Co., Of ChicaUo'
from the Board Of Public Works OF the
District of Columbia. For doing this
DsGolyer & Co., paid him 5000. In
This transaction Mr.. Garfeld's opponents
charge him with having corruptly sold
his official influence for 5000 bribe.
Mr.. Garfield and his friends assert that
he simply acted as lawyer, and that the
money was legitimate legal fee.
Can this be true with the following,
UNITED STATES STATUTE IN THE WAY.
Read the following from the Revised
Statutes Of the United States, page Sl7
ems Cted June llth, 1884:
Sec. 1888 No Senator, Representative
or delegate, after his election, and during
his continuance in Office, and no head OF
any Department or other officer or clerk
in the employ Of the Government, shall
receive or agree to receive any compen'
Ration whatever, directly or indirectly,
fDr anv services rendered or to be rem
dered to any person, either by bimself
or another, in relation to any proceeding,
contract, claim, controversy, charge, ac'
Cusation, arrest or other matter or thing
in which the United States is a party, or
directly or indirectly interested, before
any Department, Court Martial, Bureau,
officer, or any civil, military or naval
commission whatever. Every person Of
tending against this section shall be
deemed guilty Of misdemeanor, and
shall be imprisoned not more than two
years, and fined not more than than ten
thousar d dollars, and shall moreover, by
conviction therefor, be rendered forever
thereafter incapable of holding any Of
fee of honor, trust or profit under the
Government of the United States"
PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED,
That Mr., Garfield rendered the servi-
Ces and received the money, is shown by
the testimony of his partner, Richard G..
Parsons, whose testimony before the
committee was:
In the spring of 1872 II think in ApriD
/ was retained by Mr.. Chittenden, as a
lGl1er on behalf of the firm of DeGol
yer & Mcclellan OF Chicago, to argue be-
fore the Board of Public Works at Wash.
ington, the question of the superiority of
their patent for cured wood pavement.
Question by Senator Thurman:
Was your question on the legal question?
No sir. There was no dispute as to the
patent, but there was an impor ant ques
ton as to which of all the patents pre-
Bented was the best one.
Before the Board had finally made it's
awards l was called home to G eVeand,
and feeling great solicitude as to the re-
suit of my abors, and of course desirous
of securing my fees, 1 called upon Gen.
Garfield and gave him a history of the
case 70 it then stood, and asked him if
he would act in my absence. 4 |
said to him l had fee in the case Of
importance to me, and would be glad to
share it with him. TIE same day or day
after left for Cleveland, and when re-
Ceived my fee some considerable time
after, from my clients at Chicago, de.
posted Gen. Galti Ids to his credit in
bank, and go wrote him.
In addition, the fact is also admitted
by Mr.. Garfield himself who says in his
Warren speech, Sept 10Th, in vindica
tion of himself;
worked at it as faithfully as any thing
/ ever worked at. did it in open day
light. l could never get to understand
how anybody has seen any thing in hat
on which to base an attack on me.
] made the argument.
And the argument was successful, and
the SIS 900 fee was paid. A 100000 job
was obtained at So, so per yard for pave.
ment which cost but $3.50.
THE UNITED STATES INTERESTED.
But Mr. Garfield, in the same speech,
says in regard to this transaction:
1t was said by some that it was in some
way connected with the United States
Treasury HowP
Let the Appropriation Bill of March
3, 1873, answer this question. lSee acts
of Congress 1928, page 154):
To reimburse the late corporation OF
Washington for the work done etc. slS8OO2 rs
To reimburse the Board OF Public
Works for work done etc.........,...~ 1O6 ,588 90
To complete improvement in streets,
9I8 497 26
To reimburse the city OF Washing
ton for improvements Of the av.
enues, ec........ 100000 90
50 2OS O83 Ol
THE TWO HORNS OF THE DILEMMA.