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."