The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-06-12
Portland Advertiser.l
4 GENERAL GARFIELD.
FACTS ABOUT THE DeGOLYER CON-
TRACT.
The Official Record in the Congressional
Globe.


Garfield was chairman of the House COM
Mlttee on appropriations in the Forty-second
Congress The Shepherd ring was in full con-
troll OF the District Board of Public Works.
The Chicago firm of DeGolyer & Mcclellan
had the patent of worthless pavement and
also had $97 900 which they were willing to
expend as corruption fund for the sake of
procuring profitable contract. The wide
streets and avenues of Washington, with many
thousands. OF square yards, each square yard
worth so many dollars to somebody, stretched
out in every direction from the building
where Garfield stood as guardian of the treas
ury door.
The agent of the Chicago contractors spent
their $97 900 of corruption money. A large
part of it went into the pockets of the Shep-
herd ring. Some of it went into the pockets
of members of Congress. On May 20, 1872,
Garfield reported to the House two appropria-
tions, one Of $6S, 800 and the other of $192. 600
for the use of the Shepherd Board of Public
Works, and advocated them in speech, in
which he warmly eulogized the honesty and
efficiency of Boss Shepherd and his pals. Mr.
Randall OF Pennsylvania, now Speaker, sharp
ly questioned the character of the proposed
appropriation, but upon Gar6eld's assurance
that it was all right, the bill went through.
Two or three weeks later the Shepherd Board
awarded to DeGolyer &, Mcclellan a contract
for 10000 square yards OF their humbug pave
ment at $3.50 per square yard, and promised
them contract for $4,000 square yards more.
The superintendent of the pavement concern
has sworn that it cost but $1.5O to lay the stuff
The pavement was laid and soonsrotted. The
profits Of the steal to all the parties concerned
in it amounted to hundreds OF thousands of
dollars.
On July l2, 1872, James A. Garfield pocket
ed a check for $5 900, paid him by De Golyer
through Richard G. Parsons, another member
of Congress from Ohio. This generous gift
was delicately put in the shape of counsel
fee for professional services as lawyer. Gar
field pOcketed the check, although he we |
knew that he had rendered no legal assistance
to the firm of De Golyer & Mcclellan, for the
excellent reason that there had been no legal
question involved in their operations at Wash
lngtOn. He simply wrote paper and affixed
his signature to it, recommending the Board of
Public Works to adopt the De Golyer pave
ment No. 2 together with the De Golyer &
Mcclellan process for ironizing the wood used
in its construction.
Parsons, Garfeld's colleague, testified:
II called upon Gen. Garfield and gave him
history of the case as it then stood land asked
him, as Congress would adjourn in few days,
il he would act for me in my3absence and give
the subject careful investigation. He at first
declined on the ground of pressing business,
but finally assented to have me send the model
books, papers, &C., to his house for examina-
ton. After day or two called upon him,
and he said he would prepare an opinion as to
case
for me. said to him had fee in the case
OF importance to me, and would be glad to
share it with him. The same day or day after
left for Cleveland, and when / received my
fee, some considerable time after, from my
clients at Chicago l deposited Gen. Garfield s
to his credit in bank, and so wrote him.
Parsons further testified that he received
$1,000 at the time he was retained and subse-
quently got his contingent fee of $4,000, MAX
ing in all $4,000. OF this sum Garfield re-
ceived 81 800. But what service did he rem
der?
Chittenden, lobbyist then working in the
interests of De Golyer & Mcclellan, in letter
to his clients spoke of the employment of Gen.
Garfield as follows:
"To-days and to-night's work has secured
the assistance of Gen. Garfield. You cannot
overrate the importance of this accession. He
is chairman of the Committee on Appropria-
tions, and holds the purse strings of the ma
tional treasury. | need not say that now
feel certain of success"
Is is true that in 1872 General Garfield was
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
and this is almost the only true statement in
this account of the rs after. AS chairman Mr.
preparation agreed upon for sundry civil ex-
penses. He was the spokesman of the COM
mittee and reported such appropriations as a
majority of the committee directed Here is
the Globes cerbatim report of the proceedings,
so far as two items referred to by the Argus
are concerned:
The clerk read as follows:
To refund to the Board of Public Works of the
District of Columbia the amount expended by them
for paving roadway, and curbng and paving side
walk in front of or adjoining the property of the
United States Government, and paid for by said
Board, 1892, ,92o.41.
Mr.. Ambler-I move to strike out the para
graph just read.
Mr.. Garfield of Ohio-The law of Congress
which created the Board of tublic Works and
organized the District of Columbia into ter
ritory, empowered the Board of Public Works
to make improvements. Under the provisions
of that law of Congress and the legislation OF
the District of Columbia they have made inn
provements. In the law of Congress there was
no provision made for taxing any part of the
property of the Government of the United
States. Wherever the territory of the District
of Columbia owns piece of public property
like the City Hall, or any Of its other public
property, under the law as it now stands, Q
certain proportion of all the expenses of paw
ing streets, making sidewalks, or doing any
other work of public character, is paid by the
CITY, If private parties own property on the
opposite side of the street they will pay thei1
share of the expenses.
The Board of Public Works made certain
improvements not only opposite the reserva-
tions owned by the city, but opposite reserva
tions and property owned by the government
of the United States In every such cast
they have made out full and accurate state
ment of the. expense of the grading, paving
and other work done in the streets opposite
such government public property, and through
the Governor of the District of Columbia they
have forwarded to the President of the United
States complete statement of such expenses
and an estimate of what the government o
the United States ought to pay, if it puts it
self exactly in the place of the government O
the District of Columbia, when the work
done opposite the District property. .
The President has forwarded that paper t.
the House of Representatives, and it has beel
referred to the committee on appropriations
The paper gives specific and detailed state
ment Of the work done, of the number o
square yards of paving, or cubic yards O
grading, or any other work done, naming
| the square; for2 instance, La Fayette square
the grounds opposite the War and Navy De
partments, Madison Place, jackson Place
Botanical Gardens, and all ether points oppc
| site the government property where this lwor
has been done; stating the number of yard
| and cost per yard, and making an estimate Q
| the proportion that the government of tn
l United States ought to pay, if it was put upo
the same basis that the District government
put upon, when the property is owned b
l them, opposite which the work is DONE
Mr.. Ambler-As understand, this is wor
done by the Board of Public Works withou
| any authority at all given it by the governmer
OF the United States. 1t was done under
law passed by the Territorial Legislature c
this district, and which, as a matter G
/ course, does not and cannot control the gO'
ernment of the United States.
Mr.. Garfield of Ohio-Oh, as a matter {
course, the government of the United States
not bound at all to pay anything. But tn
| work was done under law which was autho
/ lied by a law cf Congress- The only questio
is whether the United States will pay tn;
equitable share of the work which they woul
pay if they stood in the place of the District
Columbia, and owned its property instead {
owning their own.
Mr.. Randall understand the gentlema
who has charge of this bill to concede I'll
point that the United States are not bound
f2ay this mouey. Then why should we run OF
fAands so deeply into the public treasury ar
donate sum amounting in gross to nearly tv
hundred thousand dollars to the Board of Pu
lie Works of this district, board which HI
shown itself to be recklessly extravagant in i
operations?
| The question being taken on the motion
Mr.. Ambient to amend by striking out the par
! graph it was not agreed to; there being ayes 9
| noes not counted.
The clerk then read the following:
| To pay the Board of Public Works of the Distr
l of Columbia the proportion of the cost proper
] payable by the United States government for t