Tide of Unpopularity.--Misjudged.--Vindicated.--Re-elected.--The
De Golyer Contract.--The Salary Increase Question.--Incident
related by President Hinsdale.
It was impossible for a man of strong independent views like Garfield,
to mount the ladder of fame so rapidly without meeting some opposition.
A lawyer by profession, he was at one time called to appear in the
Supreme Court in behalf of some Confederates who had been tried by a
court-martial and condemned to death. Of this case an able writer says,
the rebels had been "tried by martial law in a State, in time of peace
_de facto_ in the State, and in a section of State not under martial
law. The legal question was, whether any military body had such power
under the circumstances. Should the civil power be ignored in time of
peace, or in sections of the country where martial law had not been
proclaimed? It was a case for which Garfield received no pay, and was
undertaken as a test of this important principle."
By his clear, forcible presentation of the case and the law, in which he
was fully sustained by the Court and the presiding justice--the
criminals were finally set at liberty.
When the Ohio district that sent Garfield to Congress, heard that he had
been pleading in Court for condemned rebels, a large proportion voted
against him. As soon, however, as the facts of the case were fully
known, the tide of popular feeling again turned towards their favorite
leader, and Garfield was re-elected.
The De Golyer contract was the next to excite unfavorable comment. But
again, when a thorough investigation had been made, Garfield was found
to be entirely innocent of the charges brought against him.
Mr. Wilson, the chairman of the Congressional Committee of
Investigation, gives a clear statement of the case as follows:--.
"The Board of Public Works at Washington 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
represented, as attorney, the De Golyer & McClellan 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 on
this patent. This he did, and this was the whole of his connection in
the 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
_pavement_ in favor of which General Garfield argued, but was upon the
_contract_ made with reference to it; and there was no evidence which
would warrant the conclusion that he had anything to do with the
latter."
There were forty kinds of pavement presented, and for drawing up a brief
in favor of the De Golyer patent, Garfield received a fee of five
thousand dollars.
This was an honorable business transaction. "There was not in my
opinion," adds Mr. Wilson, "any evidence that would have warranted any
unfavorable criticism upon his conduct."
Garfield defended himself in a manly, straightforward manner. "If
anybody in the world," he said in conclusion, "holds that my fee in
connection with this pavement, even by suggestion or implication, had
any relation whatever to any appropriation by Congress for anything
connected with this District, or with anything else, it is due to me, it
is due to this committee, and it is due to Congress, that that person be
summoned. If there be a man on this earth who makes such a charge, that
man is the most infamous perjurer that lives, and I shall be glad to
confront him anywhere in this world."
The political opponents of Garfield delighted to call him a "salary
grabber," but with how much justice the following facts will show.
On the 7th of February, 1873, a bill was presented in Congress, together
with a report submitted by B. F. Butler, from the Judiciary Committee of
the House of Representatives, for the passing of the so-called
retroactive law. Its object was to increase the pay of members of
Congress for past services, a measure that Garfield strenuously opposed
from the first. A few days later Butler tried to incorporate it with the
miscellaneous appropriation bill. Of the whole matter, Garfield spoke as
follows:--
"I wish to state in a few words the condition of the salaries-increase
question in the conference committee of the Senate and the House. The
Senate conferees were unanimous in favor of fixing the salary at $7,500
and cutting off all allowance except actual individual travelling
expenses of a member from his home to Washington and back again, once a
session. That proposition was agreed to by a majority of the conferees
on the part of the House. I was opposed to the increase in the
conference as I have been opposed to it in the discussion and in my
votes here; but my associate conferees were in favor of the Senate
amendment, and I was compelled to choose between signing the report and
running the risk of bringing on an extra session of Congress. I have
signed the report, and I present it as it is, and ask the House to act
on it in accordance with its best judgment."
Garfield felt that Congress had no right to increase its own pay, but
those who favored the plan had attached it to another bill that he very
much desired to see passed.
President Hinsdale who was in Washington at the time, says,--
"There is an incident connected with that bill which I will relate, not
because I was concerned in it, but because it shows something of the
working of Garfield's mind. I got to Washington on Saturday, and on
Sunday there was a long session of the committee on appropriations
devoted to the discussion of the increase of salaries. This feature was
a rider on one of the most important appropriation bills. Garfield
opposed the rider, but was overruled by the committee. On Monday, I
happened to pass the room of the committee on appropriations and I found
General Garfield walking up and down the corridor. He said to me,--
"'I've got to decide in fifteen minutes whether I will sign that bill or
not. If I do, I go on the record as indorsing a measure that I have been
opposing. If I do not, I lose all control of the bill. It will be
reported to the House by General Butler, and he will control the debate
on it. The session of Congress ends to-morrow, and if the bill fails to
pass, this Congress will expire without making provisions for carrying
on the government. Now, what would you do?'
"I told him that I would sign the bill, and in the House I would briefly
explain why I had at last signed a bill which I had opposed. I don't
assume that his conduct was guided by my advice, but he pursued the
course I had indicated."
The bill passed; but immediately upon the receipt of the back pay that
had been voted him, Garfield returned the money to the Treasury.