Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 September 1880 — GARFIELD’S DE GOLYER RECORD. [ARTICLE]

GARFIELD’S DE GOLYER RECORD.

HE DECLARES THAT HE MADE AN ARGUMENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. fFrom His Speech at Warren, Ohio, Sept. 19, 1874.] Mr. Parsons came to me and said lie liad an important case ; he had worked a good while on it, but was called away. He must leave. He did not want to lose his fee—was likely to lose it unless the work was completed. He aske'd me if I would argue the cas,[> for hip; if I

would examine into the merits of this pavement and make a statement of it before tlie board. I made the argument. [From the Same Speech at Warren.] Tlie question was, if the people want the wood pavement and are determined to have it, which pavement shall we give them, the best, or not the best? Now, I have before me here, what I had when I made the argument, certificates from Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco, and all tlie other cities where the pavement was laid, that it stood better than any wood pavement that had ever been laid. [From the Same Speech.] A committee of investigation went over the whole ground of this business in Washington. Mr. Parsons went before that committee and told them all he knew about this pavement; told them wliat he knew of its merits and told them he and I argued that case. GEN. GARFIELD SWEARS THAT HE ARGUED THE CASE BEFORE THE BOARD. [From his Testimony lx-fore an Investigating Committee of Congress, in February, 1879.] Mr. Nickerson—l understand you to say, Mr. Garfield, that you prepared a brief after Mr. Parsons went away, and that you filed it with the Board of Public Works. Is there such a brief on file ? Mr. Garfield —My impression is that I filed it, though lam not certain. I know that I stated to the Board of Public Works the points of the case. The Chairman—You did make an argument ? Mr. Garfield—l made a careful study of the case, and I stated the points to the members of the board. Mr. Nickerson —Did you ever meet tho board collected together as a board, and make any statement or argument on the subject*? Mr. Garfield—l don’t know whether the members of the board were all there or not. Mr. Nickerson —Did you at any time appear before the board and make any arguments whatever ? Gen. Garfield—l do not remember that I did; but I did speak to Gov. Shepherd on the subject, giving my opinion in its favor. THE TRUTH ABOUT GEN. GARFIELD’S ‘ ‘ ARGUMENT. ” [From Alexander li. Shephord’a Testimony Before the Same Committee.] Q. —You say, speaking of the influence of Parsons, “That was followed by frequent pressures by Mr. Parsons, and Gen. Garfield spoke to me about it once.” Is that your best, recollection now, that that was allthat was done by Mr. Garfield ? Mr. Shepherd—That was all that he ever did. He never spoke to me but once on the subject. WHY PARSONS WAS EMPLOYED TO EMPLOY GARFIELD. [From Benjamin R. Nickerson’s Testimony before the Investigating Committee.] I was tlie owner of the ironizing process. I was to ironize the pavement and have a royalty. My interest in it w r as worth $150,000 or $70,000, at least, and Mr. Parsons was employed with the assurance to me by Chittenden that he was able to reach the man who could secure the contract. AND WHY GARFIELD WAS EMPLOYED. [From a Letter to De Golyer and McClelland from their Agent, George R. Chittenden, May 90,1872.] Tlie influence of Gen. Garfield has been secured by yesterday, last niglit, and to-day’s labors. He holds tho purse-strings of the United States; is Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the strongest man in Congrr ss. I sail hardly realize that we have Hen. Garfield with us. It is sure success and very gratifying, as all the appropriations of the District must come through him. A REPUBLICAN OPINION OF THE TRANSACTION. [From The Independent, July 30, 1874.] The testimony taken in the investigation of the District of Columbia frauds shows that Mr. Garfield received $5,000 for his aid in getting through a paving contract accepted by the District Government. A Mr. Parsons, a notorious jobber, made an argument for tlie paving company, and then got Mr. Garfield to make a further argument and to use his personal influence in its favor. Of course Mr. Garfield’s argument was successful. How could it be otherwise ? He was Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Every cent of money voted to the District had to come through him. Shepherd could not refuse him anything he asked, and Mr. Garfield knew it when he asked and received for his services a fee which would have been grossly extravagant but for his official position. GEN. GARFIELD DENOUNCED BY HIS CONSTITUENTS FOB TAKING THE DE GOLYER BRIBE. [Resolution Adopted by the Republican Convention' at Warren, Ohio, Sept. 7, 187G.] We further arraign and charge him with corrupt bribery in selling bis official influence as Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for $5,000 to the De Golyer pavement ring to aid them in securing a contract from the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia; selling his influence to aid said ring in imposing upon the- people of said District a pavement which is almost worthless, at a price three times its cost, as sworn to by one of the contractors ; selling his influence to aid said ring in procuring a contract to procure which it corruptly paid $97,000 “for influence ; ” selling his influence in a matter that involved no question of law, upon the shallow pretext that he was acting as a lawyer ; selling his influence in a manner so palpable and clear as to be so found and declared by an impartial and competent court upon an issue solemnly tried.