Decatur Democrat, Volume 24, Number 24, Decatur, Adams County, 16 September 1880 — Page 9

Well, the wickedness of all of it is that these men betrayed the trust of the people, deceived their constituents, and, by evasions and falsehoods, confessed the transactions to be disgraceful. DE GOLYER. De Golyer & Company were parties who had a patent pavement which they wanted the Board of Public Works of Washington and Congress to buy and lay down. Sheppard was then in control of city affairs, and Garfield was the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives. In order to obtain the contract they had to pass through both these bodies. The subject was investigated before a Committee of Congress, and it fully appeared, by the testimony of Garfield and others, that the agent of De Golyer & Co. paid Garfield a fee of SSOOO for his agency in procuring the contract for them; that he never filed with the Board of Public Works or elsewhere a brief or opinion on the subject of the patent pavement, but that he did speak to Gov. Sheppard once on the subject. The contract was given to De Golyer & Company. It cost the Government about $1,200,000. The profits to the contractors were about $400,000. It could not have gotten through the Committee on Appropriations without the influence of the Chairman. Garfield was the man to reach. His influence was secured by the SSOOO fee, for which he gave no opinion, except to speak to Sheppard. The pavement was a cheat and a swindle. The question came up in court in Chicago as Chittenden, the man who*secured Garfield through Parsons, brought suit against De Golyer and M’Clelland for this service after they had secured their money on the paving contracts. His claim was that he had , secured Garfield, not as a lawyer, but on the distinct ground that t he was Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. The plea of the defendants was that this was a claim for lobby services that the court could not recognize, because to do so would be against public policy, and their counsel quoted the opinion of ' Justice Swayne in a much weaker case than this of Garfield. The plea was sustained by Judge Farwell, of the Circuit Court of the United States in Chicago, and the case there ended with the defeat of the plaintiff. The evidence was overwhelming, not only that the pavement was worthless and over-charged, but that the contract had been obtained through the influence of J. A. Garfield, member of Congress, and Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, through ( which committee the bill for that and all other District expenses t would have to pass, and Richard C. Parsons, Garfield’s friend and ( United States Marshal for the District. The pernicious effects of , these official influences were so apparent, and presented a case so ’ analagous to that of Trist vs. Child, passed On by Justice Swayne States Supreme Court, that Judge Farwell took the even employed the same language which w ay n e

and Means Committee, whenever it shall report a bill touching any import duties, to place salt and coal upon the free list. Mr. Garfield seems to have dodged this vote, for just before the vote was taken he is recorded on a civil rights bill, and just after it on the tea and coffee bill. [lbid.] The following is from the Congressional Record of April 6, ’80: Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. 1 move to suspend the rules so that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from the further consideration of House bill No. 5265, and that the same be now passed: The bill was read as follows: “ That sections 2503, 2504, and 2505 of Title 33 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be revised and amended so that the duty on salt, printing type, printing paper, and the chemicals and materials used in the manufacture of printing paper, be repealed, and that said articles be placed on the free list.” Mr. Townshend, of Illinois. 1 call for the yeas and nays on agreeing to the motion to suspend the rules. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and there were —yeas 112, nays 80, not voting too. So (two-thirds not voting in favor thereof) the motion to suspend the rules was not agreed to. Mr. Garfield voted against the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to relieve printing paper, and type, and salt from tax. SALARY GRAB. He voted for the salary grab and took the money. RAILROAD SUBSIDIES. He voted to grant millions of acres of public lands to R. R. corporations, and against securing the rights of actual settlers on the same. May, 1870. SWINDLES OF THE NEGRO. He voted against instructing to investigate and try those concerned in the defalcations of the Freedman’s Bureau. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. He voted against the bill to restrict it. DENOUNCED BY HIS REPUBLICAN CONSTITUENTS. September 7, 1876, Republicans of his Congressional District adopted the following: Resolved, That we further arraign and denounce him for his corrupt connection with the Credit Mobilier, for his false demals thereof before his constituents, for his perjured denial thereof before a committee of his peers in Congress, for fraud upon his constituents in circulating among them a pamphlet purporting to set forth the finding of said committee and the evidence against him, when in fact material portions thereof were omitted and garbled. Resolved, That we further arraign and charge him with corrupt bribery in selling his official influence as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for $5,000 to the DeGolyer pavejment ring to aid them in securing a contract from the Board of the District ol Columbia; selling his influence to of said 1 Jistrict a paveles cost, as J 2 2 _

I RECORD OF JAMES A. GARFIELD. Ki ; CREDIT MOBILIER > was the corporation that built the Union Pacific Railroad. Oakes Ames handled its stock, and bribed members of Congress to pass the bill by giving them stock. The whole of the facts came out in the Forty-second Congress, before the Poland Republican Congressional Investigating Committee. They are as follows: Oakes Ames swore that in January, 1868, he got for Garfield ten shares of the Credit Mobilier stock; Ames paid for the stock; Garfield did not pay him any money; Ames sold the bonds for $776, and received a cash dividend on the stock of S6OO, leaving j due to Garfield $329, after paying for the stock, which amount he f swore he paid him in cash, and he submitted the account as follows: 1 GARFIELD IN ACCOUNT WITH OAKES AMES. The following memorandum referred to by witness as a statement : of his account with Mr. Garfield was placed in evidence: J. A. G. Dr. 1868. To 10 shares stock Credit Mobilier, A SI,OOO 00 Interest 47 00 June 19, To Cash 329 00 $1,376 00 1868. By dividend bonds Union Pacific Railroad A. SI,OOO at 80 per cent, less 3 per cent 00 June 17. By dividend collected for you 600 00 $1,376 00 OAKES AMES’ “LITTLE BOOK” showed the following entries of Senators and members of Congress, and the amounts received by them: H. L. Dawes.. $ 600 Bingham $1,200 Schofield 600 Allison 600 Patterson 1,800 Kelley 329 Painter 1,800 Wilson 329 . Wilson 1,200 Garfield 329 Ames swears became public, Garfield 1 any

EASILY FOUND.