Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-08-18

.
District come from him.
The plea then AYERS that Garfield
appeared before said Board as Set ont
in former plea, that the award Of said
contract, with the conditions as set
out in the other plea, was made and
goes on to aver:
"rhat then and there, the said J. A.
Garfield, was a member Of the House
of Representatives, in which all bills 10
appropriate money originate that be
was then and there Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations of the
House Of Representatives, to which
Committee by rules and practice OF
said House all bills to appropriate
money TO be expended in the said
District Of Columbia must be and are
referred that then and there it was
welLknown 10 the said Richard c..
Parsons, James A. Garfield. Alexander
r. Shepherd, the plaintiff, and the
said De Golyer and Mcclellan, that the
said j. A. Garfield then and thereafter
in his official character as mem.
Der Of the House of Representatives,
and as Chairman of the said Commit
tee, did, could and would exercise a
potent influence in and upon the said
Committee, and upon the same House
Of Representatives, in reporting to and
passing through said House bills TO
appropriate moneys to be expended in
the said District of Columbia, in and
upon the said pavements TO be awald-
ed by the said Board of Public Works
The defendants aver that then and
thereby and by means thereof, the
said A, r. Shepherd, as a member Of
SAID Board, and the said Board Of
Public Works was moved and induced
to make and, in fact, did make the
said award and contract above set out
and described in the declaration, and
not otherwise.
"And these defendants further say
that aiterward, to wit, on the 10th day
of July, 1872, at Chicago aforesaid, in
consideration thereof and Of the ser.
vices and official influence rendered
and given as aforesaid by the said J.
A, Garfield and the said r. G, Parsons,
the said De Golyer and Mcclellan made
their certain draft for 500 and de.
livered the same to the said Parsons
at Cleveland, which said draft was
paid that then and there the one-half,
or the sum of $4,000, was paid to the
said James A. Garfield for bis services
and official influence, etc. that it was
to be paid as a contingent fee, and was
to be paid only on the condition that
the said award should be granted by
the said Board of Public Works, and
otherwise, as was then and there agreed
between the said plaintiff and the said
Parsons for himself and for the said
Garfield.
"And these defendants further say
that aiterward at Washington afore.
said, the said Committee on Appropri.
atoms did recommend the passage and
the House of Representatives did pass
a bill appropriating large sums of
money, which said bill passed Con.
gress and was approved January 8,
1873, for the sum ofsl, 241, 920, 49, out
OF which said sum the said Board of
Public Works were authorized to pay
the said sum of money agreed to be
paid by said contract and awarded,
"And the said defendants further
aver that the award was, in fact,
mainly procured by the official inhu.
ence of the said Garfield alone.
"And the defendant say that by
means Of the premises the said award
and contract were then and there
illegal, improper against public policy,
and void, etc. And this the said de.
PENDANTS are ready to verify, etc.
When the matter came on TO be
heard, | as counsel for the defendants,
submitted o brief in writing of which
the fourth, fifth and sixth points are as
follows, viz;
Fourth-"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 Dis.
trict of Columbia by improper inAu-
ences. That the contract was in part
the amount of $4,000 square yards,
upon its face, contingent upon future
appropriation to be made by Congress
that the plaintiff employed James A
Garfield, then being a member Of Con
gress and Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Rep
resentatives, agreeing to pay him O
contingent fee of $4,000, provided he
would obtain the said contract of the
Board of Public Works that by hit
influence and persuasion he did pro
cure the same for which he received
the sum of $4,000; that afterwards a
bill was reported from the Committee
of which ho was Chairman, and did
pass the House, and passed Congress
and become law, appropriaiing the
sum of sl,24l, 900 out of which the
pavement out of said contract could
be said for by said Board OF Public
Works and the plaintiffand defendant
and the 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 die
and would have potent influence in
procuring the passage Of such appro
priation to carry such contract intC
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
Fitth-"lt is no sufficient answer 4
say that Garfield was at the same tint
member Of the legal profession, Hi
being a member Of Congress at The
same time, any employment as upon Z
contingent fee or otherwise to obtain Q
contraclirom Board of Public officeri
dependent upon the future action O.
Congress to fulfill, is against public
policy and is void.
Sixth-"That the plaintiff Chitten
den well knew and intended that thu
influence of Gen. Garfield as mem
ber of Congress was to be used in pro
, curing the contract rather than hi
arguments as counselor at law, as Il
evident from his letter TO the defend
ants, set out in their special plea, il
which he Gays "The influence OF Gen
Garfield has been secured by yester
day, last night and to.day's labors
, He carries the purse Of the Unitet
States-the Chairman of the Com
mittec Of Appropriations-and is th,
strongest man in Congress and will
our friends. My demand is to-day
not less than one hundred thousan,
morc-two hundred IN all. Everything
is in the best shane. the connections