Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 July 1880 — That $5,000 Brief. [ARTICLE]

That $5,000 Brief.

Gen. Garfield admits the receipt of $5,000 from De Golyer & McClelland, through Dick Parsons, but he indignantly denies that it was a bribe. Why was he paid so much, for it was a large fee to the: best of lawyers for the hardest of work ? Chittenden was interested with De Golyer <fc McClelland in the paving contract obtained for them by Garfield, but was never able to make good that interest because, while admitting his service, the firm formally pleaded that, the contract having been obtained by a bribe, it was contrary to public morals. This Chittenden avows that the amount was paid, not for the services of Lawyer Garfield, neither for those of Congressman Garfield, except in so far as he was Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Garfield says it w T as for downright hard work, he having examined some forty different kinds of pavement and made a written brief showing the value of the “ironizing” process above' all others. The Nation, without seeing the brief, thinks the work upon it worth the fee. But where is the brief ? How long was it ? How lucid and convincing ? The document is not filed among the records of the District of Columbia. It does not seem to be in existence. It was never read to the boaid of the District, and never filed for reading. Unless there was some labor upon this brief the fee was obviously for the purchase of the Congressman’s influence, for a mere statement to Shepherd was not a professional service worth $5,000. Garfield claimed that he wrote the brief. But what became of it? Was it written merely for the purpose of formal labor for a fee ? Cross-questioned before the committee on the real-estate pool, by Mr. Nickerson, who owned the ironizing process, Gen. Garfield was asked : “Did you file with the Board of Public Works of this District a brief or opinion, written, printed, or other, upon the subject of the De Golyer pavement ?” Mr. Garfield’s answer was : “I could not say I did.” “ Did you at any time appear before the board and make any argument whatever ?” was another query, and the answer of Mr. Garfield was : ‘‘l do not remember that I did ; but I did speak to Gov. Shepherd on the subject, giving my opinion in its favor.” That was all, and, as events proved, it was worth to Garfield’s employers all they paid him. If that brief is in existence, why not print it now? It would be an interesting addition to the literature of the campaign. —Chicago Times.