History of Buchanan County, Iowa, with illustrations and biographical sketches, Part 135

Author: Williams bros., Cleveland, pub. [from old catalog]; Riddle, A. G. (Albert Gallatin), 1816-1902
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Cleveland, Williams brothers
Number of Pages: 574

USA > Iowa > Buchanan County > History of Buchanan County, Iowa, with illustrations and biographical sketches > Part 135

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

While our young man was taking his first practical les- son in the fragile tenure of human reputation, and the air was thick with the vapor and odors of the Credit Mobilier, a convention of his constituents adopted the following resolution :

"Resolved, That James A. Garfield, in voting for the retroactive sal- ary bill, has forfeited the confidence of his constituents, and therefore we, the representatives of the Republican party of Trumbull county, in convention assembled, ask him to resign forthwith his office as our representative in congress."

At this distance of time, during which so many events have occurred, it is difficult to recall the force and vol- ume of the indignation, the fierce phrenzy which at once seized upon the entire Republic upon the passage of the legislative appropriation bill of March 3, 1873, which carried the obnoxious three-line amendment, advancing the pay of the legislators. The fury of the tempest will be appreciated by the resolution above, of men who had known and trusted Garfield long. He had opposed the project in all forms, everywhere, by vote, speech, and personal influence; had only voted for a bill of the greatest importance, whose folds sheltered it after a des- perate effort to dislodge it; when it became a law he would not be bound by it, never held in his palm the fruit of it for an instant, was the first to order it back to the unappropriated money in the treasury. The public mind was suffering from a brain plague. No sinister motive can be attributed in this case. At the most it was a grave misjudgment upon a matter of mixed good and evil.

Hear him as to his position:

I had special charge of the legislative appropriation bill, upon the preparation of which my committee had spent nearly two weeks of labor before the meeting of congress. It was the most important of the twelve annual bills. Its provisions reached every part of the machin- cry of the government in all the States and Territories of the Union. The amount appropriated by it was one-seventh of the total annual ex- penditures of the government, exclusive of the interest on the publie debt. It contained all the appropriations required by law for the legis- lative department of the government; for the public printing and bind- ing; for the President and the officers and employes at the executive mansion; for the seven executive departments at Washington, and all their bureausand subdivisions; for the sub-treasuries and public depos- itaries in fourteen cities of the Union; for all the officers and agents employed in the assessment and collection of the internal revenue; for

SALARY GRAB.

the governments of the nine Territories and of the District of Columbia; for the mints and the assay offices; for the land offices and the surveys of public lands; and for all the courts, judges, district attorneys, and marshals of the United States. Besides this, during its progress through the two houses, many provisions had been added to the bill which were considered of vital importance to the public interests. A section had been added in the senate to force the Pacific railroad companies to pay the arrears of interest on the bonds loaned to them by the United States, and to commence refunding the principal.

I also quote his statement of the means by which this feature was attached to the bill :

Before it was finally adopted there were eighteen different votes taken in the house and the committee of the whole, on its merits and its management. On each and all of these 1 voted adversely to the amendment. Six years ago, when the salaries of congressmen were raised, and the pay was made to date back sixteen months, I had voted against the increase ; and now, bearing more responsibility for the appropriations than ever before, I pursued the same course. No act of mine during this struggle, can be tortured into a willingness to allow this amendment to be fastened to the bill. But all opposition was overborne by majorities ranging from three to fifty-three, and the bill with this amendment added, was sent to the senate Saturday evening, the first of March. If the senate had struck out the amend- ment, they could have compelled the house to abandon it or take the responsibility of losing the bill. But the senate refused, by a vote of nearly two to one, to strike out the salary clause, or any part of it ; and many senators insisted that with the abolition of mileage and other allowances, six thousand five hundred dollars was no real in- crease, and that the rate should be greater. The bill then went to a conference committee, with sixty-five unadjusted amendments pending between the two houses.

On that committee he was the solitary member op- posed to this feature. These are his views of some of the evils of the bill :

There were grave objections to the defeat of the appropriation bill. Everybody knew that its failure would render an extra session of the new congress inevitable. It is easy to say now that this would have been better than to allow the passage of the salary clause. Present evils always seem greater than those that never come. The opinion was almost universal that an extra session would be a serious evil in many ways, and especially to the `treasury. Its cost directly and indi- rectly, would far exceed the amount appropriated for retroactive sal- aries. An unusual amount of dangerous legislation was pressing upon congress for action.

In his speech at Warren, 1874, already referred to, he thus refers to his final action. What can be more satis- factory ?

But by a very large vote in the house, and a still larger vote in the senate, the salary clause was put upon the bill. I was captain of the ship, and this objectionable freight had been put upon my deck. I had tried to keep it off. What should I do? Burn the ship? Sink her? or, having wasbed my hands of the responsibility for that part of her eargo I had tried to keep off, navigate her into port, and let those who had put this freight on be responsible for it? Using that figure, that was the course I thought it my duty to adopt. Now, on that matter 1 might have made an error of judginent. I believed then and now that if it had been in my power to kill this bill, and had thus brought on an extra session; I believe to-day, I say, had 1 been able to do that, I should have been the worst blamed man in the United States. .

The government has since submitted to graver wrongs than a dozen salary grabs, to avoid the evil and peril of an extra session of congress.

This charge against Garfield has long ceased to have vitality. It never had any right to live, and I close this brief reference to it by one of the concluding passages of his admirable address referred to:

If the delegates believe that the retroactive clause is so infamous that I ought to resign for voting for the appropriation bill to which it was attached, will they follow out their logic and insist that the Presi- dent ought to resign for signing it? My vote did not make it a law. Ilis signature did. I do not consent to the logie that leads to such a conclusion.

CHAPTER III.

THE DE GOLYER CONTRACT.

Case Stated. - Sketch of the District of Columbia Government. Com- gress Never Appropriates for Street Improvements. -- C'ase before the Joint Committee of Congress .- Glover and His Committee. ITis Labors. - His Garbage Sealed with Seven Seals .- Case Re-opened by Chicago Times .- The Spry Nickerson. -- Garfield Exposes Ilim. -Garfield's Statement on Oath .- Garfield's Chances for Thrift. - Still Poor.

There has been a certain flavor following the name of DeGolyer, which much effort has attempted to connect with that of General Garfield. Perhaps its intangibility, its formlessness, has given it a certain lightness favorable to its life.

If it could be fairly arrested and analyzed, if there was venality or corruption in the conduct of General Gar- field, that could be made to appear. Something may be done, however, to show that nothing sinister could have existed in his relations to the case.

In February, 1871, congress created a government for the District of Columbia, consisting of a legislature, gov- ernor, and the usual machinery of a State government. It also provided for a board of public works, and cast upon it full power over the streets and avenues of the District. Full power was vested in the legislature, which alone could appropriate money for improvements, with a limitation on the power to create a debt. The board of public works could make no contract until the legislature had made an appropriation to cover the out- lay. During the existence of this government, which continued until June 20, 1874, congress did not attempt to exercise the slightest control over the streets or ave- nues, or other objects of improvement, nor did it make an appropriation for streets or avenues, nor was it asked to; nor during that time did it pay for any improvement, except as the United States was a property owner. Nor did or could any contract, or proposed contraet, in any way depend upon an appropriation by congress, nor did

LIFE OF JAMES A. GARFIELD.

anybody who knew anything of the subject suppose con- tracts did so depend. Who should so state was either ignorant of the subject or base in his purpose.

The board entered on its duties in April, 1871, and the first session of the legislature placed at its disposal four million five hundred thousand dollars by appropria- tion ; one-third of the cost of improvements was a servi- tude on property, and this sum was to pay the two- thirds, chargeable to the District treasury. The board at once, with wonderful vigor, entered upon hundreds of miles of streets, and commenced their improvement. Pennsylvania avenue was the only paved street in Wash- ington, at that time. Various plans for paving, and a vast variety of pavements, and paving companies, com- peted for preference. On consultation with the United States engineers and architects, the board adopted a rate of payment for pavements by the square yard, and a form, with well-devised stipulations, terms and condi- tions, for its contracts. There may have been some ir- regularities in.º making these contracts, and possibly favoritism in awarding them. The trouble was in decid- ing among the many, which was the best pavement, and the best party to execute the work. In its eagerness to push the work, scores of contractors went to work, and had their contracts filled up and executed long afterward.

The DeGolyer contract was awarded in June, 1872, when vast quantities of work were being undertaken. There was always a vigilant and relentless opposition, in the District, to the board of public works, and late in 1873, congress ordered an investigation into all its trans- actions. It was out of this inquiry, before the joint committee, that the famous safe-burglary case arose. All of the board's contracts were overhauled, and the details of their lettings and execution passed upon-among them, the DeGolyer. That made no figure there, nor was. there any importance attached to it. General Garfield was not then assailed, nor did he appear before the com- mittee. Senator Thurman and Mr. Jewett, of Ohio, were both on the committee, both his personal friends, and either of them would have had him called, had there been the least thing reflecting upon him. Mr. Parsons, DeGolyer's lawyer, was called, and made an explicit statement of the whole matter ; so also one Benjamin R. Nickerson was called, who swore he knew nothing of the transaction, nor of the men or means employed to secure the contract. Garfield's connection with the transaction transpired to the public. It was seized upon in his district as we have seen. One of his constituents called out the following letter from J. M. Wilson, of In- diana, chairman of the house part of the committee, and

perhaps the most efficient man of the very able joint committee.

CONNERSVILLE, INDIANA, August 1, 1874.

HON. GEORGE W. STEELE-Dear Sir: To the request for informa- tion as to whether or not the action of General Garfield, in connection with the affairs of the District of Columbia, was the subject of con- demnation by the committee that recently had those affairs under con- sideration, I answer that it was not; nor was there, in my opinion, any evidence that would have warranted any unfavorable criticism upon his conduct.

The facts disclosed by the evidence, so far as he is concerned, are briefly these:

The board of public works was considering the question as to the kind of pavements that should be laid. There was a contest as to the respective merits of various wooden pavements. Mr. Parsons repre- sented, as attorney, the DeGolyer & McClelland patent, and being called away from Washington about the time the hearing was to be had before the board of public works on this subject, procured General Garfield to appear before the board in his stead, and argue the merits of this patent. This he did, and this was the whole of his connection in t'ie matter. It was not a question as to the kind of contract that should be made, but as to whether this particular kind of pavement should be laid. The criticism of the committee was not upon the pave- ment in favor of which General Garfield argued, but was upon the con- tract made with reference to it; and there was no evidence which would warrant the conclusion that he had anything to do with the latter.

Very respectfully, etc., J. M. WILSON.

This was one of the charges which he met at Warren, already referred to. His course was discussed in the circles of the capital. No one spoke of corruption on his part. Everybody there knew that the appropriation referred to, as a condition of increasing the work, was an appropriation which could only be made by the District legislature. The only question was, whether he, with his eminence, should have permitted himself to appear be- fore such a body as the board of public works.

The matter passed to merited oblivion, until one of those popular mishaps, which discredit representative in- stitutions, threw from the depths one Glover (a name the world would let die-willingly) of Missouri, into the house of representatives. Emulous of the example of his Democratic peers, to inquire into the doings of their neighbors, while they were away, (he had a turn for that,) he managed to organize a small inquisitorial office of his own, nominally a committee to investigate the "Wash- ington Real Estate Pool," a very baffling body indeed. After an ineffective tussle with that mythical shadow, Glover turned his attention to miscellaneous scandal, sparing no body or thing, friends-if such he ever had- or enemies. Some of his mendacious assaults were upon the good men of his own party. He had a short- hand reporter, and all through the winter of 1876-7, he was raking among the scabs of the body politic and

THE DE GOLYER CONTRACT.

social. He had a pleasant way, when he fancied he had discovered a pustule, or pimple, of having his first im- pressions written vividly up and given to the press. In this way he contributed many lively tales to the current gossip of the capital. From a scandal himself he be- came a nuisance, and his political associates were. com- pelled to abate him. He never was permitted 10 make any report, could never get his rakings printed. Finally, as was said, the committee upon printing gathered his garbage, placed it all in a box, and sealed it with their "seven seals," each having one of the names of the committee written upon it.

Among the things to which he was attracted, was the DeGolyer contract. He took it up as an original case. He called Governor Shepherd before him several times, without effect. Finally the versatile Nickerson came to his aid Nickerson who had sworn before the joint com- mittee that he knew nothing. of the transaction; that neither Brown, nor Chittenden, nor Parsons, nor any one else-the parties who were in some way connected with the DeGolyer contract-had ever told him anything about it. They avoided telling him. Now he declared that they severally told him all about it, and that he had a great deal of original knowledge of his own upon the case, which he detailed in a spry way to the refreshed Glover-all going by innuendo and indirection to point to Garfield as the great power to be secured in the case by the DeGolyer party-the man who held the national purse strings, and could secure large appropriations. At this point Garfield himself appeared, and read to the committee in the face of the undisturbed Nickerson, his former testimony, in flat contradiction of each point just deposed to by him. He went further, was sworn, and for the first time gave his account of his connection with the case, on oath, which was the end of it. Glover did not furnish the world with any account of his findings, and the world never knew that he was looking for any- thing in this gutter. It was sealed up to silence and ob- livion, until a correspondent of the Chicago Times dis- turbed the remains of Glover, violated the seals of the committee, and gave it, with comments of his own, to that sheet.

Nickerson was recalled on the first of March, by Glo- ver, and General Garfield was present with the report of the joint committee. I quote from the Times version. He asked Nickerson-

Are you the B. R. Nickerson who testified before the joint committee of which Senator Allison was chairman in 1874 ?- A. 1 am.

Q. From page 1270 of the proceedings of that committee 1 read a portion of your examination as follows: "Q. Did you know Mr. Brown was employed by Mr. Chittenden ?- A. No, sir; Mr. Brown avoided

every reference to anything of the kind; will say he avoided it. I mean to say he did not communicate anything" -- was that statement true ?- A. yes, sir.

Q. That statement was subsequent to your knowledge at the time of the transaction ?- A. Yes, sir.

Q. In your testimony here the other day were you asked, "Do you know whether Chittenden employed Brown and paid him ten thousand dollars," and did you answer "I know that he did pay Mr. Brown two thousand dollars; so Brown said and so he said?" --. 1. Yes, sir.

Q. Which of those two statements is true ?- A. They are both true.

Mr. Garfield, resuming the joint committee report:

Now I will proceed to another point. I read from his (Nickerson's) ex- amination before the joint committee, volume three, page 1270, as fol- lows: "Q. And you had frequent talks with Mr. Chittenden on the subject ?- A. Very frequently. Q. Did you see what he was doing? -A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he ever tell you ?- A. He told me he thought they were getting along very fine, and that he was assured. I am now speaking up to the time of Mr. Huntington's death. I am speaking of the time that elapsed after the death of Mr. Huntington, subsequent to that time. He assured me every time the question was up that he had secured the proper arrangements for carrying out substantially what had been secured with Mr. Huntington. He stated that Mr. Hunting- ton had secured a promise and the assurance that the contract should be awarded, and that Mr. Huntington had secured it, and would have obtained it in a few days subsequent to his death. His death ent it off, and he has secured the services of other parties. My idea was that in

the same line, and the same men Mr. Huntington had been associated with, had been substantially continued, and the arrangements were ab- solutely to be carried out. Q. Who were these men ?- A. Mr. Chit- tenden never informed me; whatever he knew definitely he cautiously concealed. Q. Had you any idea who these men were ?- A. Well, he informed me-yes, sir; I had an idea who they were. My idea was that Governor Cooke was the main man that Mr. Chittenden assumed to me to be relying upon, and I will tell you the reason I say that."

And so Governor Cooke was the mighty, mysterious man, longed for, sighed for, in 1872, before Glover's time, not Garfield. Mr. Garfield resumes, commenting and reading from the report:

There is a long cross-examination here to elicit from this witness the names of any other parties, and four pages further on the chairman says to him: "Now just give the names," to which the witness replied: " I told you two or three times that no names were given." A member of the committee then asked him this question: "You were asked by Mr. Wilson what Mr. Page told you the names were; answer that ques- tion;" and he replied: "I stated distinctly that Mr. Page cautiously and purposely avoided telling me." (. He did not tell you the names? A. "No, sir." Repeatedly seven or eight times, I should say-the wit- ness here declared that Chittenden gave him no names after the death of Huntington, and that he did not know the names of the parties. Now, I ask him, were those statements true? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then what have you to say as to the truth of this statement made here the other day: " I know all about the matter in all its phases through Chittenden and Parsons at the time?" A. That is true, too.

Here the witness goes back to Brown, who had avoid- ed him.

By Mr. Garfield: Q. When did you learn those names? A. I learned them when Chittenden was called upon the stand, and I learned them through Brown previously, and through DeGolyer and MeClel- land.

LIFE OF JAMES A. GARFIELD.

Q. When did you learn them from Brown? A. Directly after the contract was awarded.

(). Then you knew from Brown before you testified, the names that you now refer to? A. No, sir; I don't say that either. If you will understand what I do say you will get along better-you will get the truth and that is all you will get.

Mr. Garfield-It is very difficult to get that in view of these conflict- ing statements.

The Witness-There are no conflicting statements there. I don't want to be badgered. If you will ask me proper questions I will an- swer them distinctly if I can.

Q. When did you learn from Brown the names of these people? A. I never said I learned from Brown the names of the people. 1 learned from Brown that he was employed, and I learned from him, furthermore, that he had received a consideration, or was to receive a consideration.

Q. When did you learn that from Brown? A. Directly thereafter. General Garfield pursued the agile witness, with many further contradictions.

Here follows Mr. Garfield's testimony upon the mat- ter, taken from the same Times, as follows:

Now the whole story is plainly and briefly told. A day or two be- fore the adjournment of the congress which adjourned in the latter part of May or the first part of June, 1872, Richard C. Parsons, who was a practicing lawyer in Cleveland, but was then the marshal of the supreme court, and an old acquaintance of mine, came to my house and said that he was called away summarily by important business ; that he was retained in a case on which he had spent a great deal of time, and that there was but one thing to be done, to make brief of the relative merits of a large number of wooden pavements; that the board of public works had agreed that they would put down a certain amount of wooden pavement in the city, a certain amount of concrete, and a certain amount of other kinds of pavement ; that they had fixed the price at which they would put down each of the different kinds, and that the only thing remaining was to determine which was the best pavement of each of these several kinds. He said he should lose his fee unless the brief on the merits of these pavements was made, and that he was suddenly and necessarily called away home; and he asked me to prepare the brief. He brought his papers to my house and mod- els of the pavement. I told him I could not look at the case until the end of the session. When congress adjourned I sat down to the case, in the most open manner, as I would prepare a brief for the supreme court, and worked upon this matter. There were perhaps forty kinds of wood pavement, and several chemical analyses of the ingredients of the different pavements ; I went over the whole ground carefully and thoroughly, and prepared a brief on the relative claims of these pave- ments for the consideration of the board. That was nll I did. 1 had nothing to do with the terms of the contract, I knew nothing of its conditions, and I never had a word to say about the price of the pave- ment. I knew nothing about it ; I simply made a brief upon the rela- tive merits of the various patent pavements ; and it no more occurred to me that the thing I was doing had relation to a ring, or to a body of men connected with any scheme, or in any way connected with congress, or related in any way to any of my duties in connection with the committee on appropriations, than it occurred to me that it was interfering with your personal rights as a citizen. 1 prepared a brief and went home. Mr. Parsons subsequently sent me a portion of his own fee.

A year later, when the affairs of the District of Columbia came to be overhauled, congress became satisfied that the government of the Dis- trict had better be abolished, and this whole matter was very thoroughly

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Buchanan County, Iowa, with illustrations and biographical sketches, Part 135

Author: Williams bros., Cleveland, pub. [from old catalog]; Riddle, A. G. (Albert Gallatin), 1816-1902 Publication date: 1881 Publisher: Cleveland, Williams brothers Number of Pages: 574

Author: Williams bros., Cleveland, pub. [from old catalog]; Riddle, A. G. (Albert Gallatin), 1816-1902
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Cleveland, Williams brothers
Number of Pages: 574