American citizen., 1880-08-07
Mr.. Garfield In Court.

The following is Mr.. Garfield's con
nection with the DE Golyer pavemen
as shown by the records of the Circui
Court of Cook County, Illinois, with tn
decision of Judge Farwell. 1t is no
particularly cheerful reading for kepub
licans:
State of Illinois, Cook County Cir
cult Court. George r. Chittenden VS.
Robert McClelland ct al. May term
1875, before Farwell, Circuit Judge
No. 12,181.-The plaintiff, by f. A
Storrs. Esq, brought suit against th'
defendants upon a contract, by whicl
they agreed to pay him one-third of al
the profits upon all paving contract
which he would obtain for De Golye
and McClelland from Boards of Publ,
Works in Eastern cities. The declara
tion alleged that he obtained contrac
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 Law i
down. That the profits were $4OO, 600
and claimed the defendant should pay
him 100000 at least.
The defendants pleaded in substance
81. That the contract was Uoid on 1T
face.
"2. That it was obtained by tho
plaintiff by improper influences, agains
public policy, and therefore was void
The plea set out that it was obtained
mainly through the influence of James
A. Garfield, then a 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 $1,000 for obtaining it; that the
contract contained a clause for so, ,OOC
additional square yards contingent upon
an appropriation to be made by Con-
gress; that by the usual course OF busi-
ness all bills for such appropriations
came from the committee Of which sad
Garfield was then Chairman; that he
did subsequently report bill appro-
priating 81, PA 200 out of which said
for his influence and services he did
receive the sum of $5, 900.
"3. Another plea set out the facts
above stated and alleged that the said
plaintiff and said Garfield and said
Board of Public Works then soeU Enew
that tt sOas not the arguments of said
Garfield rs a ldWyer, but his influence
as a member of Congress haUing poUer
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
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. DOolittle, who appeared as
counsel for the defendants, submitted
among others the following points. in
writing, May IA. 1875, Judge Farwell
presiding:
"4. 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-
tons of the House of Representatives.
agreeing to pay him contingent fee of
5000, provided he would obtain the
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
law, appropriating the sum of ST.
24l, 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
member of the legal profession. His
being a member of Congress at the
same time and employment as coun-
sci upon contingent fee, or other
wise. to obtain contract from a
board of public officers, dependent
fill, is against public policy and void.
SO. That the plaintiff Chittenden
well knew and intended that the influ-
ence of General Garfield, as member
of Congress, was to be used in pro-
ducing the contract, rather then his
arguments as a counselor at law, is evi-
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 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, 1 have reason to believe, satisfac-
tory. l can hardly realize |
that we have General Garfield with us.
1t is rare and very gratifying. All the |
of the District come from |
him.
"In the recent case of Burke VS.. |
Child, not yet reported (May, 1879, |
decided at the last October term in the
Supreme Court in the United States,
Mr.. Justice Swayne, in a very able
opinion, reviews all the cases. and
holds: That a contract, express or inn
piled, for any purely professional service
is valid. Within this category he in
cludes drafting a petition, attendance
On taking testimony, collecting facts,
arguments, and submitting
them orally or in writing to n commit
tee or other proper authority.