Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1842-03-01

Of 500, 600, 10 his work.
Mr.. Long makes the following statement, in vim
dcatlon ofhlmself, that the board had authorized
him TO put under contract the line from Lawrence
burgh to the first feeder dam above BroOkvIile and
that a second order of the board authorized him TO
put under contract additional portion OF the line
not exceeding S3O0,OO0 and that he did not exceed
these limits.
1t Will be observed that Mr. Lewis, Mr.. Blake.
Mr.. Morrison and Mr.. Maxwell, OF a different
opinion from Gen Long in this matter. By refer
ence To the official orders OF the books Of the board
your committee think ready solution of the discre-
pancy viii be had The original order of the board
limits Gen. Long to % miles IN extent Of line m
GLIDING the first feeder dam above Brookville. This
distance would have reached to the then cOntem-
plated dam. The dam was afterwards located some
ii miles further up the line, and Gen. Long con-
strued the order 70 extend his lettings up to
the new point, without any reference TO the hmita-
tons winch restricted him to 30 miles IN extent OF
lettings IL the orders OF the board be looked at
and construed according to their natural and PLAIN
meaning, your committee think that Gen. Long had
no authority to put under contract, under the first
order, greater extent Of line than 30 miles from
Lawreuceburgh To the point where the first feeder
dam was then expected to be erected, and that
the subsequent order authorised him TO let above
that point 10 the amount of $500, 600. Instead Of
letting to the extent of $500, 900, over and above
the line first ordered be put under contract,
Gen. Long let the extent of SJ64 GOO, leaving
excess ofone hundred and twenty four thousand
dollars. Your committee can by no means Justify
this excess, although 1t may be possible that IT pro-
cecded from demonstration of the resolutions Of
the board. The excess IS so large, and the viola
tion of law palpable, your committee feel bound
to recommend that ms official bond be put IN suit.
Your committee conceive that the reasoning applied
to Mr. Morrison's case, applies with full force 10
Gen. Longs
Another charge made against Gen. Long is that
he used the money of the state for his private pur
poses.
DR.. Coo, in answer to question No. ), page No..
of the journal, states that he at final settlement
OF Gen. Longs account, the balance found IN ms
hands of The funds Of the State, not dlsbursed, ex-
ceeded seven thousand dollars.
This statement OF DR.. Cue made, apparently,
from memory, and the committee were referred to
the fund commits toner's office for more accurate
testimony on this head. Accordingly on eXamina-
ton OF 1lr Hubbard, clerk OF the fund comn!ss
ers office find the following be a correct state
mcnt OF that matter In January and February,
1880, Gen. Long drew for the sum of SIC, 300
which drafts paid him. On the settlement of
his accounts IN November of that year, he was
found TO have in his possession, uncXpcnded, the
sum Of about 800 dollars, which at that time
paid IN cash and claims against the State.
General Longs statement relative 10 this matter
is as follows On page Of the journal, he says
that, previous to going out Of Office funds were
placed IN his hands 10 pay damages done TO private
property the claims for damages were not all ad-
Justcd when my term OF office expired. was re
CURED 10 settle finally with the new board IN No
vember following, which did. The balance against
me, which think was about 1000 dollars, was
paid, part IN claims upon the State, and part in
money, TO the best of my recollection. In page
he says the claims were estimates OF contractors.
purchased none at discount. | received them in
payment Of debts due me, and in cases were the es
Inmates exceeded my claim, paid the surplus Ia
money; before stated, purchased 10 estimates
during the time of my service member Of the
board Of Internal Improvement | cannot state how
much OF the balance was paid IN money, nor how
much in claims, not recoilecting, and having nov
10 means of determining. Mr.. Long, in another
part OF his answer, denies having used the funds Of
the State for private purposes.
There Is some uncertainty about this matter. In
January and February, 1850, Gen. Long received
ofthe State funds, Il, 500 dollars to pay damages
to property he states. Ills office expired in
March. Yet we find that he keeps possession of
the state funds 10 the amount of 600 dollars for nine
months after his office had expired. His final pay
ment was not made IN the kind of funds received,
but partly IN the claims OF contractors which
transferred to HIM in payment Of debts due him, and
partly IN money. II General Long did not, during
these months the funds OF the Sta'e for his own
use, 1t may be enqulred why he did not come 10 an
earlier settlement and 1t may well be asked what
became OF the funds received, as General Long does
not pretend that he paid the same funds received.
at the tardy settlement finally made by him. our
committee think the weight OF testimony greatly
against General Long. The conclusion can scarce
ly be escaped that General Long used these funds
lor private purposes ana aIlrr"aIus oousht UP Is
s,,b,,, car, Ia - 49, t "a. c,,,,,,oi,,.e even
from General Longs own statement.
The matter has. however, been once settled and
however culpable General Long may have EN- no
lec,.fs,t,o c,,o, on, L l,J 49,, Elm, .,lio., ,t~